Thank you, my thoughts exactly.Originally Posted by RedZ28




Thank you, my thoughts exactly.Originally Posted by RedZ28
Here's a good article...
http://courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fe...icide_ctv.html
Maybe so, but that's only because there hasn't been a high-profile case like this one that raised the issue... over half the States already have laws on the books making it a crime to cause the death of an unborn child while committing an act of violence against the mother. And while most such statutes contain an express requirement re "viability," those that don't have had such a requirement read into them by the courts that have been presented with the question - so far as I know, the Constitutionality of convicting someone for causing the "death" of a fetus prior to viability is, technically, at least, still an open question - but in light of the obvious logical problems presented when one tries to reconcile such a holding with the Roe/Casey line of cases, it's entirely possible the issue will never come up (prosecutor would first have to obtain a conviction, then State Supreme Court would have to uphold it first).Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
Check out the article Venus posted (good find btw, VG), and even more relevant to your particular question:Originally Posted by GnBeret
http://courttv.com/news/2003/0326/pafeticide_ap.html
In this case a woman was convicted of fetal homicide for causing the miscarraige of a 15 to 17 week old fetus, without a question long prior to viability. An interesting constitutional question, but apparently one that has so far been rejected by lower courts:
Lucas said he planned to appeal on several issues, including the constitutionality of the fetal homicide law. An earlier attempt to have the charge thrown out on that basis failed.Sounds like he filed for a writ prior to trial, which was as usual rejected. Now that the state has an actual pre viability homicide verdict on its hands, I suspect we'll see this case meander its way through the system in the coming years.
After a second look, I believe this constitutional question (can an intentional unwanted termination of a pre viability fetus by a third party be considered a homicide) has been dispositively decided by the Supreme Court under
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/492/490.html
In that case, the Supremes reviewed a Missouri law which included the phrase:
"[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,"
In brief, the Court ruled that as long as the state asserted this principle in ways that did not conflict with the rights of the mother under Roe, it was free to do so. Enacting laws against fetal homicide (properly defined so as not to conflict with a mother's rights) are clearly within the guidelines provided by the Webster decision. In other words, women can have rights both in the decision for termination, as well as the protection against criminal trespass, of a potential life they carry. No conflict.
Heh...thanks...I'm a CourtTV junkie...my bosses (all lawyers) used to have this on their TV's throughout the day...just got pulled into it...well, actually, it started with the OJ trial...Originally Posted by stant
![]()
Thanks for running down!Originally Posted by stant
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
Thanks for pointing out an already decided constitutional issue as an open question, you almost had me.Originally Posted by GnBeret
![]()
Mea culpa. Apparently the acknowledgment of error implicit in my "thanks" for providing correct answer was insufficient in the "glory to" department... my apologies, and I'll try to fall on my sword in more dramatic fashion next time, K?Originally Posted by stant
![]()
So, that said - mind if I ask who pissed in your Cornflakes this morning?LOL
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
This young man was charged with attempted murder for shooting his pregnant girlfriend in the neck...the state did NOT pursue murder charges for the ultimate death of the baby/fetus because of the girl's decision to get an abortion...here's the full story:
http://courttv.com/trials/news/1104/18_abortion_ap.html
Jury convicts teen of shooting pregnant girlfriend at abortion clinic
INDIO, Calif. (AP) — A teenager was convicted of attempted murder for shooting his pregnant girlfriend at the clinic where she went to get an abortion.
Jeffrey Cameron Fitzhenry, 17, was convicted Wednesday. The shooting April 29 left the 16-year-old girl a quadriplegic, and the fetus was declared dead three days afterward.
The victim, identified only as Sara S., testified Fitzhenry repeatedly threatened her, saying that she was "depriving him of his unborn child." When she entered the clinic, Fitzhenry followed her, argued with her, and shot her in the neck, she said.
Defense attorney Robert Dunn argued that only a lesser charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter should be considered. He said Fitzhenry shot the girl after a "continuous escalation" of anger and he did not plan to kill her.
The jury also found Fitzhenry guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and enhancements that make him subject to a sentence of life in prison. A sentencing hearing is set for Jan. 6.
Prosecutors did not seek a separate murder charge for the fetus because of the girl's decision to have an abortion, according to Robert Blythe, an attorney handling the girl's lawsuit against Fitzhenry.
Prosecutor Traci Carrillo told the jury that Fitzhenry had questioned who the father was, and the case was about his attempt to control the girl, not her decision to get an abortion.





Venus,I think me repling to this post would be like standing in the shallow end of a gas filled swimming pool,trying to light a fart with a cricket lighter.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
But
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"![]()
This guy was wrong,guilty,and should be charged with attempted murder.Im sorry the baby died,and im sorry that the girl will spend the rest of her life in pain.
(Get your flame throwers ready.)Prosecutor Traci Carrillo told the jury that Fitzhenry had questioned who the father was, and the case was about his attempt to control the girl, not her decision to get an abortion.
This wasnt about the abortion.
But if it was????
Just for the sake of discussion,IM NOT SAYING THIS IS OK<THIS IS NOT MY OPINION<THIS IS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION>
If he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??
I know as a father,i would kill anything or anyone who tried to kill my children,without a moments hesitation or a wink lost to remorse.
Isnt that how im supposed to think???
Ladies,if your husband/so tried to kill your kids,would you drop him where he stood if you had a gun??
What if your Mom or dad tried to kill your kid??Would you just wing them if you thought they could still hurt your kid,or would you shoot to kill??
Should a father kill the mother if she is trying to kill the kids?
I know its a crazy question,im sure your family and mine wouldnt do that.
I dont want to sound like attilla the DJ,but i answered yes to all the above,and i would use a taser gun on them after i shot them dead just to be sure.
The real question is.
Why would a man be convicted of something that 9 months later will be expected of him??





:::::reminder::::
the last post was just for discussions sake.
I dont agree with killing mothers or abortion doctors.





Great article VG- nice research work !
Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
NO. And if the next question is why, let me save you some time--I'm not going to go there with you-- its a waste of time for me to try to explain my pov on the value of a woman's rights/life to you- based on posts I've read here on SW- ofcourse that's just my opinion so.....
I think both the jury and the prosecutor made the right choice in this case , no question . The reasons I agree are boldface in the quote below
Prosecutors did not seek a separate murder charge for the fetus because of the girl's decision to have an abortion, according to Robert Blythe, an attorney handling the girl's lawsuit against Fitzhenry.
Prosecutor Traci Carrillo told the jury that Fitzhenry had questioned who the father was, and the case was about his attempt to control the girl, not her decision to get an abortion.
Last edited by Tigerlilly; 11-23-2004 at 02:25 PM. Reason: errors
Well, let's put it into this context. If the law says that any body aborting a pregnancy after the 12 weeks (unless there is a sustainable medical condition that will cause the mother's death) can very well be charged with murder. By law, a fetus is "not viable" until after the first trimester. A 16-year-old child, is obviously, past that point.Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
Right? Now, anyone who takes her life, would be charged with murder. However, since her unborn child/fetus was within the 12 week gestational window...her aborting the fetus is not murder. This is according to the law. He was also not charged with the death of the baby/fetus...pretty much because the mother had already decided she wanted to abort...
Does this make sense? I am not asking if you agree...but does it make sense?
Ok...now...when is murder REALLY ever justifiable? Murder is murder...you may get off on a murder charge if the jury finds "Not guilty due to crimes of passion". But, you're still a murderer. You weren't "justified" in the murder...but you were sympathized with...
It's as simple as this: Because at the point in time of the abortion, it is not in his right to decide. What sense does it make if you kill your pregnant wife because she wants an abortion? You kill the mom, you kill the child. He's NOW the one responsible for the baby's death. Anyone who justifies killing a pregnant woman because she wanted an abortion, therefore killing the unborn baby he was "trying to protect" is more than a little nuts.The real question is.
Why would a man be convicted of something that 9 months later will be expected of him??
Last edited by VenusGoddess; 11-22-2004 at 08:01 PM.





Venus,I agree with everything your saying because i really belive your correct.
I would just like someone to answer the question.
Would you kill anything and anyone that tried to kill your child??





^![]()
Was that really the question or was it :
Because that question was answeredIf he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??





Care to answer any of the rest????
If you cant find an honest answer to those questions,maybe you can answer the single question posed to Venus(in a non combative conversational post)?
here it is again for your benny...
I will also add the rest to see if you would like to answer them as well.Would you kill anything and anyone that tried to kill your child??
1.This wasnt about the abortion.
But if it was????
2.If he shot her over the abortion,would it be justifiable homicide??(you answered this one already,twice)
3.I know as a father,i would kill anything or anyone who tried to kill my children,without a moments hesitation or a wink lost to remorse.
Isnt that how im supposed to think???
4.Ladies,if your husband/so tried to kill your kids,would you drop him where he stood if you had a gun??
5.What if your Mom or dad tried to kill your kid??Would you just wing them if you thought they could still hurt your kid,or would you shoot to kill??
6.Should a father kill the mother if she is trying to kill the kids?
7.Why would a man be convicted of something that 9 months later will be expected of him??
Before you walk blindly into the trap that everyone else spotted in the last post(the reason why they didnt answer the same questions and i dont blame them),i feel the need to warn you of how stupid your going to look for your own cause.
I kinda feel like the driver on the short bus telling you to "keep all hands and heads inside the windows"
So go ahead,i double dog dare ya,answer them all!!!!!![]()
Last edited by GirlFriday; 12-24-2004 at 02:27 PM.





Yes, I could/would kill IF I had to to protect my child. BUT in any possible situation where such a responce might occur, my actions would legally justified. I would never choose to kill in unjustified circumstances such as the man did in the news story VG posted.
Last edited by GirlFriday; 12-24-2004 at 02:29 PM.
Bookmarks