I guess police/prosecutors do not.......
"Given the medical examiner’s finding, police also charged Dixon with first-degree murder of an unborn child."
I heard on here they are just an "it" before they come out of the females Fallopian tubes. So what is it...an unborn is just that an entity with no rights or a viable person if they are killed by another person not counting the person they live inside of?
I am confused.
It's not really very confusing.
goldfly (05-25-2016)
Well considering that the police is calling it manslaughter yet a woman kills an it is call an abortion, would that be called hypocrisy? A crime or not a crime, what is it?Originally Posted by Dalyn
Legally speaking, one is a crime and the other is not. And legally is what matters in this case. If you think about it, it's pretty easy to understand why there is a difference.
jpx7 (05-18-2016)
So let me get this straight. It is lawful for the mother to kill the baby and not be charged, but if someone else kills the babym the charge is an accessory therefore murder?
How can one not be the same, both instances it is a human being just that one can legally kill and the other can not.
You are correct... the hypocrisy is astounding.
An OBGYN sees a pregnant woman and considers it two patients... unless the woman decides to slaughter the unborn child and instead just call it a fetus
Yep. That's how the law works, and it really makes total sense. I mean, you can go get a mole removed from your chin if you want, but your neighbor can't sneak into your house at night and cut that **** off your face.
goldfly (05-25-2016)
Yes... same exact thing... because if you didn't remove the mole it would become a human being
BedellBrave (05-18-2016)
Yes. That's clearly what I meant. Legally speaking, it's the same principle behind why one is legal and the other is not. That's what this discussion is about. Or is it really not about that and just an excuse to make the same old tired arguments about abortion?
Sure... legally, there are two different things. No argument here.
But the law is contradicting
Okay. Cool. Glad you can see the difference.
No not about abortion.
How can it be a baby in one instance and a fetus in another? You can't have it both ways.
No one knows if she would abort it or not so he should not be charged for that. It is like Shillary and her emails, can't convict her because the evidence is mysteriously missing, like this case, we do not her intentions.
If I was the dude, I would fight the 2nd murder charge
This is bouncing around a bit, making some weird connections. I think I have outlined the difference well enough, legally speaking. The identification itself, fetus or baby, is not as important in this case as the actions involved. Again, legally speaking.
Julio3000 (05-18-2016)
Legally it is kind of messed up of stating what is life and what is not life unless circumstances come out. I hope he fights it, but still get nailed for 1st degree murder.
Luckily some laws actually have some common sense behind them, allowing for important distinctions. Some do not. I suspect that will always be the case.
Oh, you are meaning what trimester they are in? I think it happened here, drunk driver killed a girl in first trimester, no charge while another in 3rd was charged with murder.
That would make some sense.
the law states that if you murder a pregnant woman and the fetus dies too, it's double murder as it should be. Abortions are exempt since they are necessary at times.
That guy is a piece of **** who deserves the death penalty.
No. That's not what I meant.
Whoa there Nelly, that is a slippery slope is it not? Who deems it as necessary? I can understand incest and rape, but what about the ones, the "it" is an inconvenience or an oops?
I still like the notion of sewing the snatch up or dick not able to produce baby making sperm until they are wise enough to take care of the oops or inconveniences.
These laws are generally opposed by feminists and pro choicers for this very reason.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote