Could we be heading down a slippery slope?

[db44]

I've been waiting for something like this to come out of the slain marine case... If Laurean isn't charged with two counts of murder. do you think there will be a public outcry once again regarding laws to protect unborn children?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/23/missing.marine/index.html

(CNN) -- A slain Marine's fetus was not born alive, according to preliminary findings from a military autopsy, an Onslow County, North Carolina, district attorney said.

"The initial opinion is that the fetus was not born alive," Dewey Hudson told CNN.

Investigators say Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean, 21, last month killed Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach Lauterbach, 20, and burned her body and buried it beneath a fire pit in his backyard.

She was eight months pregnant and had accused Laurean of raping her.

The military asked to conduct a second autopsy on Lauterbach following a state performed autopsy.

Lauterbach's family gave its approval for the Marine autopsy, which was completed Tuesday, Hudson said.

Hudson also said the military autopsy involved some procedures not done by the state, including reconstruction of Lauterbach's skull. The state autopsy indicated that Lauterbach died from a blow to the head, contradicting a note Laurean left for his wife saying that Lauterbach slit her own throat during an argument.

The military is performing further tests on a lung tissue sample to determine whether the fetus' lungs contained oxygen, he said.

If oxygen is found, it would mean the baby took a breath. In that case, Hudson said, Laurean could face a second murder charge. North Carolina does not allow murder charges for suspects accused of killing a fetus

Additional tests are being conducted to determine if Laurean was the fetus' father, Hudson said.

Meanwhile, an 18-member North Carolina grand jury will convene Thursday morning at 9 a.m. to consider indicting Laurean on first-degree murder and other charges. Hudson would not specify what other charges are possible.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

This is a sticky wicket, to be sure. Can you say that an unborn fetus is a living person if it has not yet drawn a breath on its own, or is it a dependent life that has had the potential of independent life interrupted by a violent act?

[tiger_rascal]

At 8 months along the baby could have lived without the mothers body if given the chance.

[Annoyedlistner]

I'll look more into this, but there will be charges of some sort for the unborn child.

A few years back we had a football player here in Charlotte that had his pregnant girlfriend killed, luckily the baby survived the whole ordeal. He was convicted of using an instrument to destroy an unborn child along with conspiracy to commit murder.

[tiger_rascal]

Sometimes its hard for me to put my thoughts into words that make sense, but I'll try.

In the case of abortions, the abortion is usually before the baby is able to survive outside the mothers body, and, the baby is unwanted.

In the case of an almost full term baby being killed as a result of the mother being hurt or killed, the killer should be charged because the baby was wanted and if given the chance would still be alive if not for the crime.

Does that make sense?

In other words, I do not think its a slippery slope.

[SparkleHugs]

Sometimes its hard for me to put my thoughts into words that make sense, but I'll try.

In the case of abortions, the abortion is usually before the baby is able to survive outside the mothers body, and, the baby is unwanted.

In the case of an almost full term baby being killed as a result of the mother being hurt or killed, the killer should be charged because the baby was wanted and if given the chance would still be alive if not for the crime.

Does that make sense?

In other words, I do not think its a slippery slope.


I think it makes sense, and I agree completely.

[pinky]

I agree as well. Chad, you stated that very well.

[ConnieB]

Sometimes its hard for me to put my thoughts into words that make sense, but I'll try.

In the case of abortions, the abortion is usually before the baby is able to survive outside the mothers body, and, the baby is unwanted.

In the case of an almost full term baby being killed as a result of the mother being hurt or killed, the killer should be charged because the baby was wanted and if given the chance would still be alive if not for the crime.

Does that make sense?

In other words, I do not think its a slippery slope.First of all, as far as an abortion, how do you know for sure the baby is not wanted by the father? I mean the woman can get an abortion without the father being involved or even made aware of her being pregnant and having this done. Remember it takes two people to make a baby and both people should be present to sign papers, just like when a baby is put up for adoption, the father needs to sign away his rights to it.

Secondly, I remember seeing a case where the man was charged with 2 accounts of murder for killing a woman, and she was 3 months pregnant...In the case, the jury decided the baby had a right to life because it had a heart beat. So in my opinion, if this guy can be charged with murdering a 3 month old fetus, a woman should be charged with killing her fetus as well.

Also there have been babies who have been born at 5-6 months and lived...of course they are on a vent for a bit but they are living on their own, just like someone who is older living on a vent to allow their body to get well. So how can you say they can't survive outside of the mother when many have proved otherwise. Now, Abortions are legal up to the 3rd semester, so a woman is killing a human being when she decides to have one at 5 months and should be charged with murder, since babies have survived when born at 5-6 months.

[SparkleHugs]

What about abortions that happened before 3 months??

[DoubleEdgeSword]

First of all, as far as an abortion, how do you know for sure the baby is not wanted by the father? I mean the woman can get an abortion without the father being involved or even made aware of her being pregnant and having this done. Remember it takes two people to make a baby and both people should be present to sign papers, just like when a baby is put up for adoption, the father needs to sign away his rights to it.

It's not his body.


Secondly, I remember seeing a case where the man was charged with 2 accounts of murder for killing a woman, and she was 3 months pregnant...In the case, the jury decided the baby had a right to life because it had a heart beat. So in my opinion, if this guy can be charged with murdering a 3 month old fetus, a woman should be charged with killing her fetus as well.


Facts, please? What case?



Also there have been babies who have been born at 5-6 months and lived...of course they are on a vent for a bit but they are living on their own, just like someone who is older living on a vent to allow their body to get well. So how can you say they can't survive outside of the mother when many have proved otherwise. Now, Abortions are legal up to the 3rd semester, so a woman is killing a human being when she decides to have one at 5 months and should be charged with murder, since babies have survived when born at 5-6 months.


Let's put aside the fact that the majority of babies born this prematurely die, and most of those who do survive have a lifetime of severe disabilities (does that tell you something about doctors playing "God?"), and just stick to the fact that abortions are legal up to the third trimester in this country. In the U.S. 88% of all abortions are performed under 13 weeks, according to the CDC data.

[pinky]

I'm just not getting into this dicsussion in any major way, because they never end to anyone's satisfaction. But I have to throw one comment into it, relating to DES's comment that it's not the man's body.......

It's also not the woman's body that's being aborted.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I'm not sure I understand your point, Claire.

[pinky]

I believe your post intended to counter Connie's by negating any right of the unborn child's father, based on the fact that it's not his body carrying the child, that only the woman has the right to contribute to the decision.

And yet, she's making a decision about a body that is not hers. The unborn baby has no say in the decision, despite the fact that it is his/her body that's being destroyed.

[shining star]

What kind of sentence should women who have abortions be given, Connie? Do you want them tried for murder and sit in jail for the rest of their lives? Or maybe they should sit on death row?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I believe your post intended to counter Connie's by negating any right of the unborn child's father, based on the fact that it's not his body carrying the child, that only the woman has the right to contribute to the decision.

And yet, she's making a decision about a body that is not hers. The unborn baby has no say in the decision, despite the fact that it is his/her body that's being destroyed.

Okay, just wanted to make sure. Well, like you, I don't think debate is going to change many people's minds. This is a subject where most have very strong feelings. I have already stated my position, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree. :)

[pinky]

Exactly.