Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Life For Duo Who Killed Unborn

User Profile
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Unlawful (and Lawful) Taking of Human Life

Tuesday’s Boston Globe front page reports on the first degree murder conviction of two Boston men:

2 guilty in shooting of mother-to-be
Face life terms in baby's death

After 10 days of deliberation , a Suffolk Superior Court jury convicted two men yesterday of first-degree murder in a brazen 2003 shooting of a pregnant woman on a crowded Orange Line train that resulted in the death of her child. Chimezie Akara, 23, and Andre Green, 22, were each charged with firing an errant hollow point bullet that struck Hawa Barry in the abdomen on Feb. 5, 2003. Barry, who was 8 1/2 months pregnant at the time, survived, but her son died 45 minutes after being delivered by Cesarean section…The two were also found guilty of three counts of armed assault with intent to murder, three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and one count each of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. They face mandatory life in prison without parole at sentencing today.

A life prison term without parole is mandatory under Massachusetts law (I believe) for persons convicted of first degree murder.

The Boston Globe news story is accurate and unbiased. The term murder can be defined as the unlawful taking of a human life. These men committed that crime. Neither is there ambiguity as to the “birth status” of their murder victim, since the murdered boy had a Caesarian birth 45 minutes before his tragic death.

Yet it is inescapable to ponder that it is perfectly legal (though uncommon) for a physician to terminate the pregnancy of a woman who is in her 2nd or even 3rd trimester, via the procedure known as IDX to the medical establishment and Partial Birth Abortion to Pro-Lifers. The procedure was used in 0.17% of all abortions in 2000 according to the staunchly pro abortion-rights Alan Guttmacher Institute. There are more than 1 million abortions performed in the US each year, so the number of IDX abortions performed in the US is at least 1700 per year, if the Guttmacher study data reflects current practice. Wikipedia gives the number at 2500-3000 per year.

Today these 2 men are headed for a life sentence not because they shot the mother-to-be. That crime was assault with intent to murder. The mother is still very much alive. They will receive the mandatory life sentence because in shooting her they took the life of her unborn child. What they did was certainly unlawful, but was what they did any less the “taking of a human life” than are these horrid medical procedures?
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied March 30th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
There are several differences between this case and abortion.

Firstly abortion is the woman's choice - this woman clearly intended to continue her pregnancy.
Secondly, abortions at the gestation this woman was at are illegal unless there is severe foetal abnormality or the woman have severe health problems.
Thirdly, the child was born alive, it died as a person.

diamond splinter wrote:
The term not a nice act can be defined as the unlawful taking of a human life.

The key word here is unlawful - abortion is not unlawful when set within the parameters of the law.

I don't have a problem with D&X procedures either fyi.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 30th, 2007
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COURT GIVING THEM FIRST DEGREE. THEY SHOULD GET THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR TAKING LIFE FROM A PERSON WHO HASN'T EXPERIENCED IT YET. AT LEAST THE BABY IS IN A BETTER PLACE. what IS THIS WORLD BEEN COMING TO LATELY ???
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 30th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
lagrimas wrote:
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COURT GIVING THEM FIRST DEGREE. THEY SHOULD GET THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR TAKING LIFE FROM A PERSON WHO HASN'T EXPERIENCED IT YET. AT LEAST THE BABY IS IN A BETTER PLACE. what IS THIS WORLD BEEN COMING TO LATELY ???


For the love of god, don't type in all caps. I'm for once glad that this place edits those out; but i still see them when I quote you.

I agree with the court's desicion, but not for the reason you do.

I am pro-choice.

However, this was clearly a wanted baby, and it could have been born at this point and had mild or no complications.

This fetus was what I call viable, and as such, it's unintended death is murder.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied March 31st, 2007
Experienced User
Eiri wrote:
lagrimas wrote:
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COURT GIVING THEM FIRST DEGREE. THEY SHOULD GET THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR TAKING LIFE FROM A PERSON WHO HASN'T EXPERIENCED IT YET. AT LEAST THE BABY IS IN A BETTER PLACE. what IS THIS WORLD BEEN COMING TO LATELY ???


For the love of god, don't type in all caps. I'm for once glad that this place edits those out; but i still see them when I quote you.

I agree with the court's desicion, but not for the reason you do.

I am pro-choice.

However, this was clearly a wanted baby, and it could have been born at this point and had mild or no complications.

This fetus was what I call viable, and as such, it's unintended death is murder.


I don't know what view to have on this, but the foetus's death definitely wasn't murder because it is not a legally-protected or idnetified person.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied March 31st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
lagrimas wrote:
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COURT GIVING THEM FIRST DEGREE. THEY SHOULD GET THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR TAKING LIFE FROM A PERSON WHO HASN'T EXPERIENCED IT YET. AT LEAST THE BABY IS IN A BETTER PLACE. what IS THIS WORLD BEEN COMING TO LATELY ???


An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. -Gandhi
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 1st, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Kypros wrote:
Eiri wrote:
lagrimas wrote:
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COURT GIVING THEM FIRST DEGREE. THEY SHOULD GET THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR TAKING LIFE FROM A PERSON WHO HASN'T EXPERIENCED IT YET. AT LEAST THE BABY IS IN A BETTER PLACE. what IS THIS WORLD BEEN COMING TO LATELY ???


For the love of god, don't type in all caps. I'm for once glad that this place edits those out; but i still see them when I quote you.

I agree with the court's desicion, but not for the reason you do.

I am pro-choice.

However, this was clearly a wanted baby, and it could have been born at this point and had mild or no complications.

This fetus was what I call viable, and as such, it's unintended death is murder.


I don't know what view to have on this, but the foetus's death definitely wasn't not a nice act because it is not a legally-protected or idnetified person.


Ahhh but in the eyes of the court it was murder Rolling Eyes
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 4th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
diamond splinter There is a large difference in a 12 wk gestation, the point at which most abortions happen by, and a 34 week gestation, which 8 1/2 months would be.
There is zero survivability outside the womb at 12 weeks but at 34 weeks there is a 70 - 90% survival rate; not mind you that there are not other complications but in a NICU unit a 34 week gestated fetus holds a fair chance of survival out of the womb.
Thats modern medical science in action.

The woman was shot, the fetus was shot at a point, even in the U.S, where abortion is illegal except in cases where pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.
Why do you persist in posting inaccurate melodrama and misleading 'facts' about abortion I have no idea. Get a hobby, its more productive.

Your myth aside the fact remain in statistics compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute's research confirm the "600-per-year figure and indicate that abortions in the third trimester (the 7th, 8th and 9th months) of pregnancy are indeed very rare, accounting for fewer than 0.04% of abortions. Third trimester abortions are done when necessary to protect a woman's life or health, in many cases when there are severe fetal abnormalities that make it risky to continue the pregnancy. A large percentage of second trimester abortions, particularly those in the late second trimester, are performed for the same reasons."

Did you catch the part about necessary to protect the womans life and/or health? Did you miss or deliberately ignore the part about severe fetal abnormalities? Does Trisomy 13, Anencephaly, Exencephaly, Meningomyelocele or congenital neoplasms sound at all familiar to you? If not you should look them up and actually see what you rail against and promote in promoting forced gestation of severe abnormalities.

Put away the propaganda toys please and take a little while to learn what you are actually 'fighting' here.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 7th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
HEY STUPID COW IT WAS MURDER AS THE LAW SAW FIT SO WIND YOUR NECK IN AND TAKE YOUR FACE FOR A SHYTE YOUR DRIBBLING CRAP
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 7th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
diamond splinter wrote:
HEY STUPID COW IT WAS not a nice act AS THE LAW SAW FIT SO WIND YOUR NECK IN AND TAKE YOUR FACE FOR A SHYTE YOUR DRIBBLING CRAP


I'll take that to mean no, you didn't do your homework and cannot logically in a reasonable fashion dispute my facts.
Kindly keep the personal insults to a minimum unless, of course, your educational level is such that you are unable to articulate a response in a more mature and responsible fashion.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 7th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
diamond splinter wrote:
HEY STUPID COW IT WAS not a nice act AS THE LAW SAW FIT SO WIND YOUR NECK IN AND TAKE YOUR FACE FOR A SHYTE YOUR DRIBBLING CRAP


*chuckle* Wow, I bet you and cowboys teach your children wonderful things. At least be creative in your insults. Put some effort into them.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 8th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Hey at least my kids are alive and not rotting in some abortionist bucket
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 8th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
LMAO.
My kids are alive as well, not the remenant human tissue, which is not a 'kid' properly disposed of in legal and sanitary ways, either.
Whats your point?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 8th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
diamond splinter wrote:
Hey at least my kids are alive and not rotting in some abortionist bucket


Okay, this is more creative. Kudos!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 8th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
Birch wrote:
diamond splinter wrote:
Hey at least my kids are alive and not rotting in some abortionist bucket


Okay, this is more creative. Kudos!


So happy you aprove Rolling Eyes
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 8th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
BTW Splinter.. did you actually look up trisomy 13, anencephaly, exencephaly, meningomyelocele or congenital neoplasms or are we still playing misinformation melodrama?
|
Did you find this post helpful?