Perp & Victim
Posted on 10/31/2018 8:12:19 PM PDT by LibWhacker
As the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state’s fetal homicide law in a ruling this month, one of the justices said the decision should force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
Even lawyers within the pro-life community were conflicted on whether that is the kind of challenge the high court would — or even should — take up, but they said the dissonance between abortion jurisprudence and other areas of law, where a fetus is granted many of the attributes of personhood, is becoming tenuous.
“Fetal homicide laws acknowledge what science has already proven: that a unique human life begins at the very moment of fertilization. Abortion laws reject that reality,” said Lila Rose, a prominent pro-life advocate and president of Live Action.
The case in Alabama involved Jessie Livell Phillips, who was convicted of killing his wife when she was eight weeks pregnant.
A jury found him guilty of murder of “two or more persons” by one act, using a 2006 law that defined “person” as including a child in utero. The court sentenced him to death.
He appealed his death sentence, arguing that an unborn child is not a person with independent protections and that he therefore couldn’t be convicted of a double killing. The state Supreme Court rejected his case and upheld his death sentence, citing the state’s interest in protecting the life of both the born and unborn.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Case law is codifying situational morality. ‘Roe’ is simply bad case law. Always has been.
I’ve always seen this as one of the ridiculous aspects of the whole abortion “debate” — how can the human and moral status of the fetus/baby depend solely upon whether the woman “wants” it or not? You want to kill it? Ok, it’s not a human child. You want to give birth but someone else kills it? Ok, that’s MURDER.
Leftists want to have it both ways, but this is incoherent, i.e., illogical.
I always thought it was Colonel Tom Parker, not Justice Tom Parker.
That must be what the “right to choose” means - it’s the woman’s right to decide the unborn’s fate, so long as it remains within her. Viewed in this context, the decision to charge the man with two counts of murder makes perfect sense: she chose life, bestowing her unborn child with rights which he violated, killing the child (and also her).
Justice Tom Parker said it is a “logical fallacy” for the government to consider a fetus a life for the purposes of a murder conviction but not when it comes to a woman deciding to end her pregnancy.
I agree.
I wonder if this makes the commieratscumbagleftists crap their shorts and go full bore after this judge and back off a bit on President Trump ?
You expect leftist to be coherent? Their dead souls are at the heart ‘double minded’,
This court’s decision could be everyone’s worst nightmare or a clarifying action on the issue of is a child in the womb a “person” or “not yet a person”.
To the Left, it is a dagger in the heart of the pro-Abortion movement (leaving out medical or other life-issues/saving abortions).
To the pro-Life movement, it is a God-sent decision for their position/cause.
Now here comes the “timing” issue. Coincidence or Divine Hand? It came about less than a month after the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and just a couple of years after the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch.
Talk about “good timing” for the Pro-Life side.
Assuming the case can go up on appeal, it might just reach the higher courts after another judge is nominated by Pres. Trump to the Supreme Court (if Justice Ginsburg gives up the ghost or moves to some kind of assisted care home).
Wouldn’t that be something to see!
Guess we will have to stick around and see if Roe vs. Wade is revisited, at least in part, if not in its entirety as “final law”.
Nobody could have written this scenario accept as a fictional novel. That is why life is so fascinating. It can fool you when you least expect it.
L’Chaim!
I predict tha The USSC won’t chose to hear any such cases.
Cowardice.
exactly. this is legal inconsistency and hypocrisy. Further its based on one subjective persons fluctuating desires.
You cant have a law that lets mommy murder her baby but locks up anyone else for doing so.
Another way to view it is its logically impossible to murder something other existing laws do not regard as a person.
Yet another is that legalizing murder based on the whim of one person is morally unjustifiable, but criminalizing the same act as murder if its the whim of a different person. You basically are legally giving mommy legal permission to murder another human being, but denying anyone else the ability to do so.
Equal under the law prohibits allowing one class of citizen to murder a person, but no other classes of person to do so.
Yep - turns whether or not it is a life into a whim of situational convenience...kind of like all then “transgenders” who want to spy in the Ladies’ rooms...
i’ve said same thing for years
The argument?
yeah... one can’t be legal if the other isn’t
Indeed. Laws like this expose the weakest arguments on the pro-abortion side. When I first saw one of these laws passed, along with support from those who I would have thought would be it's natural opponents, I often wondered if they didn't see how weak it made their case in other circumstances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.