BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Hank©[_2_]

On 5/10/2013 3:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 5/10/13 3:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

So? While medical science is miraculous these days, it still has
nothing
to do with "killing babies in the womb". I suppose we could use your
examples of modern science, and say that medical technology hasn't
changed just like the gasoline engine hasn't changed, but that would
be
silly. Truth be, if left to NATURAL cause and affect, your daughter
probably wouldn't have made it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Interesting situation in Ohio with Ariel Castro. According to the
police reports he raped the girls he held and at least one became
pregnant. The reports allege that he starved the victim for several
weeks and repeatedly hit her in the stomach until she had a
miscarriage. Ohio law considers a fetus to be a human being, making
him eligible for the death penalty if convicted.

The way a lawyer "expert" was presenting it, is that the state will
have
to prove that the fetus was viable and able to live outside of the
womb
to be consider murder. That sounds to me more like it's a zygot then
fetus and not a human until birth.

--------------------------------------------------

It might sound like that to you but the Ohio statutes don't make any
distinction like that. The "expert" lawyer was likely describing a
hypothetical defense argument that he would make.

Fact is, leave a fetus alone and it almost always becomes viable. At
what point in the pregnancy does this occur? It varies. The
scientific definition is nothing more than an estimate and consensus ,
generated and defined by humans, just like the stories in the Bible
that so many like to point out. It's a convenient way to deal with
unwanted pregnancies.

So, I remain anti abortion but pro -choice.

The Ohio statutes don't make any distinction the other way, either.
Again, if the fetus wasn't viable at the time the crime (and I use that
term lightly because I think the scumbag should die a horrible death no
matter the outcome on this) then how could it be murder? On the other
hand, if they can prove that the fetus would have been born alive and
remained alive, then he'd be a murderer.

If the perp is convicted of murder and sentenced to die, I suspect the
Supreme Court will overturn the law.

I suspect you suspect wrong.