Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

…because, in their own words:

:|

Bill consequently struck down by "progressive" Democrats in the state House.

This "no personhood" stance (which is the state's official stance atm) is being brought back into the media after a court update in the case of Dynel Lane. The vote on the Crimes Against Pregnant Women bill took place 2 months after this case originally came to court.

Last year, Dynel Lane used Craigslist to advertise giving some maternity clothes away for free. 8-month-pregnant Michelle Wilkins answered the ad and came to her house. Lane then took her to the basement and strangled her until she passed out, then used a knife to cut open her abdomen and took the 34wk old baby (who had already been named Aurora) from Michelle's womb.

Michelle survived the incident, but the charges being brought on Lane have stirred controversy. She's being charged on attempted murder of Michelle and "wrongful termination of pregnancy". This charge is generally reserved for doctors who mislead patients into getting abortions with inaccurate information about the risk to a mother's health or the baby's health/deformities/etc.

Lane will not be charged with the murder of baby Aurora, who was not a person thus could not have been a victim. The jury will not even be allowed to hear testimony about her autopsy. Lane's attorney stated testimony that Aurora was healthy and living but is now dead would be prejudicial to Lane, and the court agreed based on no-personhood definitions.

It's accepted that at 34 weeks, that's 8 1/2 months, a premature baby delivered in that case has a 100% chance of surviving when given proper medical care. Lane's own husband said when he came home from work to the scene, he could see baby Aurora was still breathing on the ground. But Lane will never stand trial for literally ripping a baby out of a pregnant woman's womb and leaving her to die on the floor, because that fetus was obviously just a clump of cells, not a baby.

We've had abortion debates before, but how about the definition of personhood?
When does KYM believe a person actually becomes a person?
& regarding this case, do you believe Lane should be charged with the murder of Aurora, or is attempted murder and wrongful termination enough?

I meant to put this in SD, could a mod move plz.

Yeah that group kinda making the pro-choice demographic look bad to be honest.

To make a jump between a person and non-person is hard. I would define a person as "a developed human that, when birthed, can survive", but there have been perfectly developed and birthed babies that do not survive right after birth. 8 and a half months is a good rough estimate for how long it would take for the fetus to survive a birth. Before that time, their lungs might not secrete surfactant to be able to breathe, thus, their personhood is not complete. This is of course different in the case of babies with genetic abnormalities, because while they are incomplete to the norm, they were programmed to be as such and developed perfectly to term, so they would still be considered a person at that time. Compared to the issue of how long can you wait until abortion would be unethical/immoral, the length of time is vastly different in my views, but that's a different thread altogether.

Based on the above, Lane should be charged with murder of Aurora and attempted murder of Michelle (as she was strangled and gutted but still lived), as Aurora may have demonstrated the ability to survive post-birth, were the birth not a butchered abdominal incision :| Did Lane wish to murder Aurora too, or is leaving her on the floor so obvious that it should not be a question?

It's kinda a fucked up case, Lane was faking her own pregnancy and when her fiance (not husband yet, close call guy!) came home she said it was her own baby and she'd just had a miscarriage, so they immediately went to the hospital with the baby who was potentially alive at that point while Michelle was still in the basement, unknown to the guy. Investigators say she was trying to keep the fiance around by saying she was pregnant but after 10 months he started getting suspicious so she had to take action.

& fetal viability is ~26-27 weeks. 90% of premature babies delivered at that point survive. Even if you wanted to round up and call it 30, she was a full month beyond that point.

CO is one of the 8 states that allows late term abortions.

I am a Catholic, so that should everything about my position on this issue.

But seriously, I am completely appalled by that woman's actions and believe that she should be charged with the murder of Aurora. I am also baffled at why the pro-choice people are in defense of people like Lane, since the mother she tried to kill had no choice in the matter.

So does the bill conflict with their stance on abortion? Because the tweet says that it contains penalties against people who end the pregnancy against the mother's wishes so if the mother did choose to have an abortion then the bill would not apply.

They oppose personhood, any legislation that would penalize someone for "murdering" or criminally acting against an unborn baby is legislation they stand against because they don't believe a person is a person until they're intentionally delivered in a professional medical setting. So when reasonable personhood laws come up for public vote, these groups go full retard GOP WHITE MALE WAR AGAINST WOMEN'S RIGHTS THIS CAN NOT PASS DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS and the measure gets struck down by the people who think they're being modern feminists fighting for women's rights.

It doesn't matter to them if the mother chose to have an abortion or if the baby was forcefully cut out of her at 8 months. It's not a person either way, so nobody can be charged for killing or maiming it.

This is the very real extreme that exists on the opposite end of the pro-life spectrum. Like I said, eight entire states follow this kind of pro-choice extremist logic and have legislated accordingly.

I was born 8 months and 2 weeks. My older brother was born 9 months 3 weeks. Pregnancy isn't a one size fits all measure, because if I recall there are some children born up to 6 months who manage to survive, albiet with medical complications and need of intensive care. Meanwhile you have other babies born right on time who cannot survive on their own without being hooked up to a machine.

We're letting ourselves be fooled into thinking life is a perfectly calculated bureaucracy that never deviates. And it shows in these failures to allow exceptions.

I just checked when scientists expect brain activity to start in a fetus, as that is what I personally believe a fetus technically becomes alive, at 34 weeks, this would make the child 9 weeks past that point, as far as I'm concerned, that makes it murder, theres a reason why, in the UK at least, it's illegal to have an abortion.

So hearing a group come out and say that this person (I use this term very loosley) should not be prosecuted for essensially killing a newborn baby, is disgusting

NARAL is a repugnant group of sadly misguided people. It's disheartening to see such rhetoric employed in the public sphere, but alas, it is not surprising at all. What such speech and behavior indicates, however, is that there are severe mental and emotional imbalances with the people saying these sorts of things. Ultimately, I just hope this demented shrieking doesn't coerce the government into further negligence of the weakest among us.

Can we not just have a legal distinction between legitimate medical procedures and assaults? It's not like it's hard to tell the difference.

Sawing someone's legs off is legal if it's done by a doctor for medical reasons, but it's assault and battery in any other circumstance. All that needs to be done is make killing unborn fetuses illegal when it's not a part of a legal abortion. If there's any debate about whether it's murder or not, just give it its own category for criminal charges, like "assault of fetus."

{ Can we not just have a legal distinction between legitimate medical procedures and assaults? It’s not like it’s hard to tell the difference. }

If you get into a car accident and kill an 8 months pregnant women, are you charged with 1 count of vehicular manslaughter or 2? It's not always a clear cut case.

& that's literally the "personhood" argument summed up. If an 8 month developed baby is legally a person that you can be charged with murdering, then you can't abort an 8 month developed baby because it's a person with a fundamental human right to its life. 8 months is pretty clear cut, but what about the 26 week mark where scientists conclude a baby is viable on its own/90% of premature babies born at or past this date survive? You can get an abortion in Colorado past 26 weeks/in the third trimester, here's a Boulder clinic's info page about the third trimester abortions they offer.

I'd think a fetus at any stage is not considered a legal person as long as its part of the mother's organ system. You can twist this question so it has a different spin. Think about it this way, there are two conjoined twins (separate heads, but torsos attached) and they have been charged with murder. One admits for deliberately murdering, and the other is innocent. Would you throw both of them for a lifetime in person (the guilty and the innocent)? Probably not (I think there was a case where this happened, but I'm not sure). If the fetus was killed it can't be murder because the mother was still alive and the fetus was part of the mother. However if that is a true story, what that person did is beyond cruel and malicious I would charge for murder because of the circumstances and my claim would be that the woman could have been in labor depending on how she was attacked in such a way the attacker would not have definitively known.

You can only twist that question when your hypothetical murderers are the murderers (and literally "attached at the hip"). Try that logic with murder victims, you don't even have to make up a hilariously unlikely scenario because this very thread cites a real case.

Lifetime in person? They're already serving that sentence, no?

On a more serious note, the one who admits to murder gets a murder charge, and the other brother gets a conspiracy to commit murder charge.

Additionally, the "fetus" was alive outside of the mothers organ system. That's what the husband and murderers testimony indicate. It died most likely due to a lack of medical attention, compounded with what was essentially a rushed and sloppy c-section, which would probably kill most 9 month olds if preformed by someone without proper training and equipment. It's not as simple as just gutting a person and cutting out the baby with a knife.

By your definition, this was murder.

This Google book link was the best source I could find with a couple google searches. Conjoined twins Lucio and Simplicio, Lucio commits a crime by injuring a driver. Simplicio claims he is innocent and should not be punished. The court ordered that neither was to be punished because Lucio was innocent. This was in the Philippines not the states, but whatever.

Just why in the blue fucking hell did this woman get this compulsion to just remove a premature fetus from a pregnant woman?

I'm more surprised that anyone is actually willing to defend someone who sliced open a woman with a knife after luring her in with a craigslist ad.

Really no replies? Is anyone wondering like me if conjoined twins can get away with anything in the Philippines as long as they alternate between the crimes?

I'm a born again Baptist so my stance is pretty clear, but I would think even the most hardline pro-choicer would consider eight and a half months to be well past the "person" line.

Eight states and DC do not consider any amount of days or months to be past the "person" line, hence we get scenarios like this case.

Oh my God this is horrific