Cutts Charged with Murdering Fetus - Where's Pro Choice Outrage???????

[adios]

Bobby Cutts is accused of mudering a Canton, Ohio woman and her nearly nine month old fetus i.e. two counts of murder in a highly publicised case.

Hearing for two facing charges in death of pregnant mom...


He is charged with murdering the fetus in part due to the passage of the "Laci Peterson Law" in 2003:
Unborn Victims of Violence Act

We don't know that much about the case against Cutts but I'm willing to wager that the prosecution will state that Cutts was motivated to kill Davis due to her impending pregnancy at least in part. Given that Cutts has fathered children already (from women besides Davis as well) he's probably paying a fair of child support. We'll see what the case is against Cutts.

Pro Choice advocates came out against the "Laci Peterson" law when it was being considered stating that it infringed on women's abortion rights. Here's a sampling of the objections:

Interested Persons Memo on Attempts to Create Fetal Rights: The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003

"The ACLU fully supports efforts to punish acts of violence against women that harm or terminate a wanted pregnancy. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is an inappropriate method of imposing such punishment, however, because it dangerously seeks to separate the woman from her fetus in the eyes of the law....

By creating a separate offense for injury to a fetus, this bill attempts to endow the fetus with legal rights distinct from the woman who has been injured. This legislation would thus dramatically alter the existing legal framework by elevating the fetus to an unprecedented status in federal law....

This bill ignores the unity between the pregnant woman and the fetus she carries. Penalty enhancements appropriately punish criminal behavior while embracing that unity."


So if Mr. Cutts is convicted of what he's accused of he shouldn't be penalized for what he did to a nearly nine month old fetus?????????????????



NOW Urges Immediate Action to Prevent Devastating "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" from Passing in Senate

"Under the disguise of maternal and fetal protection, reproductive freedoms are once again under attack," said NOW President Kim Gandy responding to today's vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997). "This legislation is another despicable attempt to undermine abortion rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade."

"If members of Congress want to address the pervasive problem of violence against pregnant women, then they need to pass increased funding for education and for enforcement," said Gandy.

So are we to understand that NOW believes that Mr. Cutts shouldn't be punished due to his lack of education. Also is prosecuting Mr. Cutts for the alleged crime of murdering a nearly nine month old fetus is something that has nothing to do with enforcement????


I would expect the ACLU and NOW to be going to bat for Mr. Cutts on the charge of killing the fetus at some point if Mr. Cutts is convicted. That would be something to behold.

[Arnold Day]

I think it is resonable to charge him with the death of the fetus since his motive for the killing was due to to the fact that she was pregnant. I am not sure about what the law should be in general though.

[SBR]

Personally I support a womans right to murder her fetus until it can survive on its own. Not someone else's right to do the same.

So ya charge him with a double homicide.

[AzDesertRat]

The baby was almost born--the first line of the OT (including spelling errors) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] is

[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Cutts is accused of mudering a Canton, Ohio woman and her nearly nine month old fetus i.e. two counts of murder in a highly publicised case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you draw the distinction, but the baby was in his last month in the womb and could have probably been able to survive had labor been induced. I can see the justification for murder here.

That being said, I don't know where you can draw the line unless you do it on a case by case basis. I don't support abortions personally due to the personal responsibility part, but also acknowledge that the government shouldn't be making the decisions for people.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
Not someone else's right to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I support a womans right to murder her fetus until it can survive on its own. Not someone else's right to do the same.

So ya charge him with a double homicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand supporting a woman's right to do something regarding her own body, and that that is argued by many to be different than murder.

There is a paradox here that I have not resolved. Also, let me just state I'm not trying to comment here on my own personal views of abortion. Ok, moving on:

The pro-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion isn't really murder, and that a woman's right to choose regarding her own body is paramount.

The anti-abortion position is generally the following: that abortion is murder, which is unjustified for matters of convenience (whereas saving the life of the mother would be a different story).

So: if it isn't murder for a woman to obtain a late-term abortion, then it also isn't murder if someone else kills that same fetus at the same stage of development. A third-party killing that fetus without the mother's permission would be interfering with a woman's right to choose, but it wouldn't be murder by the definition commonly held by the pro-abortion camp.

Conversely: if it is murder for a third-party to kill that fetus without permission, it is also murder for a woman to have it done by her own permission.

To maintain a consistent position, neither side can have it both ways.

What CAN be both ways, and is consistent, would be the following view: if willful abortion isn't murder, then forcible killing of the fetus by a third-party constitutes an assault/battery/infringement on the woman herself, and does not constitute a murder of the fetus.

If the fetus is given independent status to the extent that it [/i] can be considered murdered[/i], then abortion cannot escape that charge also, although abortion may have in varying degrees extenuating circumstances or even necessity (to save the mother's life) as an excuse.

The woman clearly has more right to decide matters than would a third-party have the right to kill the fetus absent her consent, but the categorization of murder (or perhaps something lesser such as manslaughter) must be consistently applied, or not, regardless or who kills the fetus.

I don't see how this can be thought of logically and consistently in any other fashion; thus the paradox of which I spoke, which appears to me to be inherent in the positions of those who would call it murder for a third-party but not for the mother. At least, SBR, you said you support the right of the mother to murder her own fetus until it can survive on its own. edit: So your position is not inconsistent in the way you categorize the fetus. (I'd wonder if you meant a young born infant too, as it clearly cannot survive on its own either, but I doubt you meant that. Also, many premature babies survive just fine with a bit of special care. But that's a different discussion).

The fetus either counts as a human being capable of being murdered, or it doesn't. Many factors can impact whether an act is considered murder or not, but the categorization of murder is never dependent on who does the killing.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Thanks for reading.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally I support a womans right to murder her fetus until it can survive on its own. Not someone else's right to do the same.

So ya charge him with a double homicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally inconsistent. You can't charge the guy with homicide for the fetus unless that fetus is legally a person. If that fetus is legally a person you can't allow a different private citizen to murder him/her.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally I support a womans right to murder her fetus until it can survive on its own.

[/ QUOTE ]

So until it's about 14 years old? Man - that's hardcore.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not someone else's right to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the death of the fetus isn't a problem when the mother does it, then what would you be punishing Cutts for? Why does it matter who does it? The result is the same. Surely you aren't making the case that the fetus constitutes property?

If you believe the "undue burden" doctrine, it would seem like he did her a favor (well, if he didn't kill her too).

[PokeReader]

No, it is not inconsistent. She would not have been able to abort a nine month old fetus, which is well past viability, thank god. If he had been charge with it with a 4 month old fetus, you would have a point. Not the same point, but a point.