Skip to main content

View Diary: A fetus is not a person if it costs us money, says Catholic Church (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It already is (7+ / 0-)

    You can't charge somebody with murder even if they do something that intentionally causes a fetus to die against the Mother's will like punching a pregnant women in the stomach until she miscarries. The law of  the land does not recognize a fetus as a separate entity until it is born, despite the best efforts of the Anti-Choice crowd, therefore it is is not possible to murder it. However it is still possible to craft laws that make it a crime because the perpetrator has deprived the women of the fetus and many state laws do consider it a crime.  This is akin to laws that allow somebody to chose to euthanize their own pet but also have laws that can result in criminal conviction if somebody kills somebody else's pet.

    The case in this Diary is a Civil Case and the man bringing the suit has every right to argue that he deserves monetary compensation for the loss of the twin fetus and that claim has no need to turn on anything other then the hospital's neglinece deprived him of them and caused great emotional distress. It certainly can't hurt his case to point out the rank hypocrisy of the defendants since if this goes before a Jury, perception will be everything.

    •  In 29 states in the US, killing a pregnant woman (6+ / 0-)

      will get you charged with at least two counts of murder.

      •  That might well be, but the feti are not citizens (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Toon, mizzquagmire

        Where is the Birth Certificate?

        I understand the crime of murder of a pregnant woman, with one or more babies on the way, is more heinous than killing an unpregnant person.

        But the feti are not citizens. How are they citizens?

        Just askin'...

        --UB.

        "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

        by unclebucky on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:56:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be a victim of medical malpractice, (4+ / 0-)

          I don't think you have to be a citizen.

          •  What if the killer isn't a doctor? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LeftyAce

            Not "medical malpractice", just someone kills a pregnant woman. Why are two murder charges allowed by those 29 states? This isn't "depriving the (dead) woman of her fetus", this is straight-up, "that fetus was a murder victim". Scott Peterson got convicted for second degree murder for killing a fetus, and I nary heard a peep from progressives about how that flew in the face of Roe.

            •  Abortion is the decision of the woman... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pandoras Box

              The doctor acts on her wishes.

              Naturally there are many ramifications as to why this woman logicked that an abortion was necessary (beyond purely medical ones such as a fallopian tube, ectopic pregnancy).

              But what do conservatives say of providing for education, heath care, etc. of MEN so that they don't treat pregnancies as trophies?

              And I am only picking the first idea I see.

              There are more things in this issue than simply "murder", if one can call it that.

              Reductionism doesn't work very well under extended daylight.

              Ugh. --UB.

              "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

              by unclebucky on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:37:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Absolutely. You also don't have to be a citizen (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mizzquagmire

              to be the victim of murder. My reference to medical malpractice was due to the fact that the diary was regarding a medical malpractice suit.

              The point I was trying to make was that arguing about the language surrounding citizenship ("born in the US") and trying to use that to prove that fetii aren't citizens doesn't prevent the right wing nutjobs from giving them legal rights. They just can't vote :-P I totally agree with you that classifying killing a fetus as murder smells an awful lot like a backdoor attack on Roe.

          •  Agreed, but making a distinction of who is... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LeftyAce, mizzquagmire

            a citizen, resident, etc. after a conception creates many more victims, I think.

            I mean, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not an ethicist, but something suggests to me that if we start this business of making fetuses (feti, I jest using Latin 2nd Declension plural) citizens.

            Does one get a certificate of conception?

            Does such a "citizen" get a proxy vote? Instead early voting, in utero voting?

            I agree that the murder or the death of a pregnant person is twice as tragic, and that the issue of ending a pregnancy (without the consent of the woman who carries it) is equally tragic, and I could also argue that if a fetus is healthy, well on its way to being born healthy and deciding to end its progress is also tragic. I could go that far. But...

            But one's life and one's body is still one's own business. That's why murder is wrong and that's why physician-assisted suicide is not. That's why early abortion is the woman's decision only, and why late abortion requires consultation, consoling and heavy thinking.

            These things are not easy. But one thing is certain, the RCC is stepping into it big time, and I no longer give it (the clergy -- the people are different) any consideration whatsoever.

            And... this is too heavy a thing for one post. Make it a conversation, not a condemnation (except of the RCC).

            Thx. --UB.

            "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

            by unclebucky on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:31:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Totally with you on (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              unclebucky, mizzquagmire

              almost all points. I still think the citizenship issue is a red herring, since non-citizens can be the victims of crimes and enjoy legal protection against murder, etc. It would be absurd for the RW to classify a fetus as a citizen, but it would be equally insidious for them to classify fetuses as persons who are not yet citizens (the latter distinction occurring after birth, in line with the 14th amendment).

              The RCC has, once again, illustrated their immense hypocrisy in this case.

      •  Not Contitutional (0+ / 0-)

        There are many laws on the books that are not Constitutional. It is a constant battle to have them struck down. To uphold these laws would require that Roe v Wade be overturned.

    •  "the law of the land" (0+ / 0-)

      Be careful using the subject phrase in matters of state law.  Particularly in criminal law, there generally is no "law of the land".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site