Is this murder?

[bluethread]

They are thinking of charging the Cleveland kidnapper for murder for inducing a miscarriage in one of his captives. For those who do not recognize human life until there is a birth, how can this be murder?

[Bust Nak]

They are thinking of charging the Cleveland kidnapper for murder for inducing a miscarriage in one of his captives. For those who do not recognize human life until there is a birth, how can this be murder?

By defining the law to include induced miscarriage against the will of a woman carrying the fetus as murder obviously.

[keithprosser3]

BN is quite right. It is a question of legal definition not of 'fact'. Can a foetus be a legal person? Well, a corporation is a 'person' in law. And tomatoes are fruits in some jurisdictions and vegetables in others.

Such confusion is what makes lawyers rich and philosophers not.

[bluethread]

BN is quite right. It is a question of legal definition not of 'fact'. Can a foetus be a legal person? Well, a corporation is a 'person' in law. And tomatoes are fruits in some jurisdictions and vegetables in others.

Such confusion is what makes lawyers rich and philosophers not.

So, the law sees a fetus as science sees a quark. It's a person if you look at it one way and a tissue mass if you look at it another way. I guess your right. A fetus doesn't vote, but it's parents do. SO, the political argument "we have to take care of the least among us" really refers to "the least among us" who can vote.

[Goat]

BN is quite right. It is a question of legal definition not of 'fact'. Can a foetus be a legal person? Well, a corporation is a 'person' in law. And tomatoes are fruits in some jurisdictions and vegetables in others.

Such confusion is what makes lawyers rich and philosophers not.

So, the law sees a fetus as science sees a quark. It's a person if you look at it one way and a tissue mass if you look at it another way. I guess your right. A fetus doesn't vote, but it's parents do. SO, the political argument "we have to take care of the least among us" really refers to "the least among us" who can vote.

It's actually 'The least among us who can breath.' Breathing is a very important function. It means this little thing known as 'being born' happened.. and that's when the income tax deduction for having children kicks in.

The Ohio law specifies that the unlawful termination of another persons pregnancy. In other words, it wasn't the mother's consent. .. that is what makes it murder
) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.

[instantc]

BN is quite right. It is a question of legal definition not of 'fact'. Can a foetus be a legal person? Well, a corporation is a 'person' in law. And tomatoes are fruits in some jurisdictions and vegetables in others.

Such confusion is what makes lawyers rich and philosophers not.

Actually, a fetus cannot be a subject of law. The present case would not fall under the characteristic of murder, if this kind of un-consented miscarriage hadn't been explicitly implemented into the provision. As you said, it is purely a conceptual legal problem, there might as well exist a provision under a different heading entailing the same punishment.

[keithprosser3]

Actually, a fetus cannot be a subject of law.

Is not or cannot? I draw attention to this.

[marketandchurch]

I say no. It is a life, but not a full life. Once it is birthed, then yes. Should they still be charged very stiffly for for forcing a miscarriage upon a woman? Yes. But we shouldn't call it murder, because even though it is unjust killing, it isn't, in my opinion, a full life.

Now, if Ohio's definition of murder includes the forcing a miscarriage upon a mother as qualifying as murder, then sure. By their law, it is murder. But I hope they don't settle for that definition, and that it is redefined entirely. Throw every other possible judgement at these crooks, & lock them away for life, in solitary confinement.

[Choir Loft]

They are thinking of charging the Cleveland kidnapper for murder for inducing a miscarriage in one of his captives. For those who do not recognize human life until there is a birth, how can this be murder?

I'm not an attorney, but the input of one would be welcome at this point. Even a legal aid would have some interesting input I think.

This issue is a legal matter, not strictly philosophical.

But since we are speaking at a philosophical level, ought we not consider the act itself?

What actually seems to have happened is a physical assault. Regardless of the physical injury, philosophy, or the physical material involved it was without doubt an assault. An assault is punishable by law.

Consider also that a kidnapping is involved. Another assault.

One might also prosecute the criminal by claiming that he was practicing medicine without a license - also a criminal act.

So at bottom we've got at least three criminal counts or points here. Enough I believe to put this person away for the rest of his natural life, or at least a considerable amount of it.

I personally believe he murdered a human being. There has been no scientific evidence at all to indicate that the thing gestating within a woman is anything except a human being. It's not a dog is it? A fish perhaps? No. How about a bird or a snake? The egg has already hatched and is an independent living thing. It's not a plant by any stretch of the imagination.

The sole root of the argument rests upon convenience, not a definition of life. The definition has been legally tweaked to justify murder without fear of punishment to allow women to escape from the consequences of a sexual act.

Let's not be hypocritical about where we're going when we seek the truth. Abortion is murder for the sake of convenience, nothing less.

In the Cleveland case, it was murder for the sake of violence.

Either way someONE died needlessly.

The Bible says do not kill and that includes one's children.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[99percentatheism]

BN is quite right. It is a question of legal definition not of 'fact'. Can a foetus be a legal person? Well, a corporation is a 'person' in law. And tomatoes are fruits in some jurisdictions and vegetables in others.

Such confusion is what makes lawyers rich and philosophers not.

So, the law sees a fetus as science sees a quark. It's a person if you look at it one way and a tissue mass if you look at it another way. I guess your right. A fetus doesn't vote, but it's parents do. SO, the political argument "we have to take care of the least among us" really refers to "the least among us" who can vote.

It's actually 'The least among us who can breath.' Breathing is a very important function. It means this little thing known as 'being born' happened.. and that's when the income tax deduction for having children kicks in.

The Ohio law specifies that the unlawful termination of another persons pregnancy. In other words, it wasn't the mother's consent. .. that is what makes it murder
) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.

What is breathing? It is supplying oxygen to a living person to his/her blood system to "feed" the body and its organs to "stay alive."

So, if you come upon a person and find out that just one second before you got to them they had just had a heart attack and are now not breathing, and you had always wanted to know what it was like to stab a person multiple times causing fatal wounds .and went ahead and acted out your desires by stabbing the body of this person multiple times causing what would be fatal stab wounds . . could you be guilty of murder if the incident were discovered and prosecuted in court?