re: That you can kill your own baby and get away with murder is well known...

quote:

---

Taking the stairs-a normal life decision-is not inherently dangerous to others or considered in reckless disregard for human life -EVER.

---

Idiots out there think it is. That's my point. I'm not saying I think it is. My whole basis here is what would happen if the legal definition was changed to life beginning at conception. Sheesh. Sure it's a preposterous example, but surely you guys could arrive at the main point instead of attacking a sole example.

LINK

Considering that most parents aren't charged if they roll over and smother their child co-sleeping (assuming they aren't drunk, etc), I doubt a pregnant woman taking the stairs is going to be found guilty of anything. That's just adding insult to injury and wouldn't serve any purpose whatsoever (and I realize that's not always an important point to the legal system )



ETA: and I'm not saying the parents mentioned above should be charged (again, assuming they aren't drunk, etc). I can't even begin to imagine how bad that is.

I think Nancey Grace might say otherwise . She thinks every body is guilty.

quote:

---

[The suspect] would be charged with first-degree attempted murder, two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault and unlawful termination of a pregnancy. Lane faces up to 176 years in prison if convicted on all counts, the prosecutor's office said.

---

It's just a matter of the current wording of Colorado law. You can't have murdered someone who hadn't already been born. It could help us all to feel a little better to focus on the fact that the suspect is being charged with (two counts of) assault against the unborn child and with unlawful termination of a pregnancy.

I don't think this is a case of the [spirit of the] law's being indifferent to unborn babies. It's just that the Colorado legistlature got left looking short-sighted in their choice of words. I wouldn't be surprised if the law there is changed a little in the near future.

And-- unfortunately enough sometimes-- I'm sure we'll agree that you can't charge anyone with a crime that wasn't a crime when the act was committed, even if you are going to come back later and make said act a crime.

And AUbagman (sp?) was just making a point toward some technical argument. I think a lot of you jumped on him unnecessarily.

The reason weeks are usually used is because of the changes expected based on certain weeks of gestation and the fact that ___ weeks and ___ days is the common way OBs keep track of gestational age and monitor the pregnancy. And it's been that way since before abortions were legal.

I don't think anyone does it as a way of making the life seem less significant (assuming that's what you meant and I could be incorrect in that assumption).

Stuff like this is terrible regardless of how the age is measured or what age it is for that matter.

quote:

---

Would you charge someone with murder if they cut off another person's finger?

Checkmate, Christians.

---

I guess it's 5 o'clock somewhere?

quote:

---

Dude, it's Merlins, he's a better troll

---

I guess I could start giving a shite about remembering to recognize who's who. But I've never done so in real life, so...