You know, just because the unborn has a beating heart, moves on it's own, and sucks it thumb, doesn't mean it is alive. It is that short trip down the birth canal that count.

Its not even the birth canal thing, it is 'Mothers Choice'. If she decides its a human, it is one. If she decides it is a cancerous growth, it is one. Notice that when someone injures a mother thus causing the death of the unborn, it can be murder. But if the mother does it, it is like trimming toenails.

Exactly carin! There are brain waves and a heartbeat but that doesn't mean it's alive for heaven sakes! It's that "magic" when the "thing" meets air that transforms it to being human.

This is scientific ya know.

...and the Left ridicules religious people for believing in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Sheesh.

The "fetus" somehow attains a magical property of personhood only upon exiting the birth canal? And what if some lowlife kills both mother and child? If I recall correctly, in most states the lowlife is charged with two counts of murder and not just one. How can the lawmakers reconcile this?

Interestingly, this descision does not rest on the "reasonsing" (such as it is) behind Roe v. Wade, which expressly recognized that a state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Roe decided that the woman's interest in individual autonomy trumps the state's interest (and, presumably, the fetus' interest in not having its arms torn out of their sockets).

But what interest is the Hawai'i Supreme Court trying to protect? It's not the mother's reproductive autonomy; the mother's interest in getting loaded? Since when is that a Constitutionally protected interest?

But I haven't read the case. If everything turns on statutory interpretation, then the "abortion rights" argument really falls flat. Even murder of a fully-grown human being is not criminal if there is no statute penalizing it.

I skimmed over the actual decision. The court was applying Hawaii's statutory definition of "person":

HRS § 707-702(1)(a) states that "[a] person commits the offense of manslaughter if . . . [h]e recklessly causes the death of another person." HRS § 707-702(1)(a). The HPC generally defines "person" as "any natural person." HRS § 701-118(7) (1993). Furthermore, for the purposes of HRS chapter 707, HRS § 707-700 defines "person" as "a human being who has been born and is alive." HRS § 707-700.

If the statutes say (for the purposes of manslaughter) that a "person" is "a human being who has been born and is alive," how could the court find otherwise on that aspect of the case? There's no way the definition can be met until birth. Am I missing something?

When do they start throwing the virgins (if they can find any) into Kileauea again?

Yup. Nothin' but a random lump of cells.

With my nose.

Hubris said, "There's no way the definition can be met until birth."

True, but the story says the boy actually was born alive. The only question, then, is whether acts done to something that is not yet a "person" suffice when the non-person thing becomes a person.

And you're right about the statute. It looks like the court wasn't being unreasonable here. If the legislature had defined the word "person" as including gila monsters and ginko trees, the Supreme Court would have to follow that definition.

Congratulations, Slublog!

It is that short trip down the birth canal that count.

The sad part is that it has to be a complete trip down the birth canal. If all but the "head" (if it's not a human how can you call it a head?) makes it through the vagina one can jab some scissors in the back of its "head" and then suck out its "brain". I agree with Monty, the Left has nothing on Catholics and Transubstantiation.

Thanks for the update; good counter-argument.

I think the court's reasoning in overcoming that objection was sound, though. Look at the discussion of the Model Penal Code, and the conclusion:

Consequently, speaking in terms of attendant circumstances, we hold, in the context of offenses against persons set forth in HRS chapter 707, that the defendant's proscribed conduct must be committed at a time when the victim is within the class contemplated by the legislature because the specified class is an attendant circumstance. As applied to reckless manslaughter, the actor must disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the attendant circumstance exists, and therefore, a fortiori, the attendant circumstance must exist at the time of the conduct's commission. Accordingly, in the present case, the proscribed conduct must have been committed at a time when Treyson qualified as a "person," defined by the Hawaii Penal Code as "[a] human being who has been born and is alive." HRS § 707-700. (15)

Given the statute, it's clear that the unborn child/fetus was not a member of the designated victim class at the time of the conduct, so the requisite attending circumstances were not met.

All that aside, the case in no way touches upon the court's own interpretation of the definition of personhood (other than applying the statute on its face); it's just a question of whether the elements of the subject crime were met. A similar question could have arisen from a case that didn't involve a fetus at all, I think.

So when a drunk crashes into a car carrying a mother and unborn fetus, how is it that he can be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter if mother and unborn fetus die?
If this whacked-out meth freak had been killed by her whacked-out meth freak boyfriend, then I'm sure it would've been 2 counts of murder as well...
But in this case, she 'has a disease' and 'it's not her fault'...

Sorry Sobek, crossed in the mail. Yep, that's the issue, I agree.

So when a drunk crashes into a car carrying a mother and unborn fetus, how is it that he can be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter if mother and unborn fetus die?

It flows from statute, so it depends on where it happens.

Texas law is the same way. One thing you have to understand when reading law: Words don't necessarily mean what you think they mean. That's why at the beginning of almost every Chapter there is a section called "definitions". At least in Texas, I'm fairly certain that the definition of Person being "someone who has been born and is alive" predates RoevWade. Law has to try to be extrodinarily explicit. Seriously, try to define person in an explicit yet concise manner.

Also, in law, a word can mean different things in different sections or contexts. If memory serves ( and i'm too lazy to look it up) the definition of person is specific to Murder, Manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

Note: all this is from Texas law. I've never looked at other state's laws.

--ArmedGeek

Slublog, congrats. They are so cute at that age. Sorta.

Too bad it's not a person. Which will makes those kicks and pokes your wife feels ALL the more annoying.

I'm floored by this case.

It's amazing, the amount of self-deception that has to go on in order to believe abortion is about a woman's health.

And the dichotomy between double homicides for killing mother/unborn child and voluntary abortion astounds me as well. It's as if the pro-abortion crowd plugs their ears and screams "La la la! Can't hear you! Can't hear you!" when it comes to their gory ritual.

When will we wake up and just use our common sense (rhetorical question, of course) and stop deluding ourselves that unborn babies aren't living human beings?

How sad. I wonder if cavewomen dashed unwanted newborns on rocks. How far we've come, eh?

Slu - that is such a fantastic and beautiful picture. Thanks for posting it here in the middle of this sickening thread and restoring a little of my hope in man. Congratulations too!

More reasons why these idiot judges should be removed starting with the 9th circus court

Don't we believe in the rule of law? Don't conservatives want strict interpretation of the laws and the constitution. Make the darned DA's and prosecutors charge with the right crime, like willful endangerment or just throw the book at her for using the drugs. Don't grandstand and call it manslaughter if it isn't (according to the way the law has been written). Otherwise, you're just asking for the judges to legislate.

I'm a larval lawyer (1L). This "born alive" construction comes from Anglo-Saxon common law, has been with us since the founding of the country, and is the prevailing rule in most jurisdictions, including those which embrace the Model Penal Code in whole or in part. Now, some states have abrogated the common law rule and allowed homicide liability after outside-the-womb viability, or statutorily criminalized these sorts of killings while tiptoeing around the abortion issue. Nevertheless, as a bottom-line matter, this isn't a particularly controversial decision.

Sorry to inject some facts into the hysterics here, but the reason someone killing a pregnant woman and her fetus can be charged with murder or manslaughter is because a third trimester fetus is considered viable. That's why third trimester abortions are only performed to protect the health of the mother or because of a severe fetal anomaly. Roe v Wade gives the state the right to step in and refuse to allow an abortion after the second trimester, and most states have laws spelling this out. So I know it doesn't fit your hysterical stereotypes, but women aren't aborting babies before they enter the birth canal because having a baby is inconvenient.

If you're opposed to most abortions, or all abortions, fine, there's certainly a case that can be made for that. But the blather on this thread is just buullshit.

...but the reason someone killing a pregnant woman and her fetus can be charged with murder or manslaughter is because a third trimester fetus is considered viable.

Actually Chris, I don't think that's the case. A state can pass a statute making it manslaughter from the point of conception. It's not dependent on the Roe v Wade test, it's a separate area of law.

Hubris

Your point is well taken. I guess a clearer way to put it is to say that the reason third trimester abortions don't fall under manslaughter laws is because Roe severely restricts those procedures because the fetus is considered viable. The bottom line is that the many posters on this thread who were complaining about women cavalierly having third trimester abortions didn't know what they were talking about.

And I'm not a lawyer, but I guess since Roe specifically didn't address the issue of when life begins, a state could declare a fertilized egg a person for the sake of manslughter laws. I'm wondering if there would be any Federal redress under such a conviction, based on the fact that Roe doesn't seem to consider a fetus viable until the third trimester.

Chris,

Where in Roe V. Wade does it give the state the right to step in and refuse to allow an abortion after the 2nd trimester? And under what circumstances?

In all my 20 yrs of pro-life work I have never heard of the state stepping in ONCE. (but I could be wrong)

And I would hardly call the comments on this thread hysterical. Some were making satire, but that is not hysterical.

Now with you, pompous is the word that comes to mind. You know, someone with a gaval stuck up their prententious ass.

Now that is hysterical.

;-)

This is from the written decision:
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

The reason you haven't heard of the state "stepping in" is because it does so by passing laws, not by acting on individual abortions. If the state says you can't have an elective abortion in the third trimester, then doctors don't perform them. There's no need for the state to step in to individual cases.

And I do think that many of the posts on this thread are hysterical, parroting the idea that a mother is free to kill her baby right up until the moment of birth. "It's just satire" is a frequently used copout. Re-reading some of the posts I'd have to say your definition of satire is pretty broad. Calling Bush Hitler can be construed as satire, too, but try saying it on this board and see what the reaction is.

Well said. I totally agree with you. The point you are making here does make sense.

I love how Chris comes in and makes a rational argument for his viewpoint, then veers into complete insulting moonbattery.

Then he and others complain about how we don't really want to engage liberals on the issues.

Hot tip: calling us hysterical (a word you liked so much you used it twice) is not a legitimate argument. I believe the latin term for your style of debate is reductio ad assholiummoron.

" I wonder if cavewomen dashed unwanted newborns on rocks. "

Don't know about that, but the Greeks were all about putting sickly or deformed newborns in jars and leaving them on the mountainside as a snack for lynxes, wolves, etc.

Peter Singer would be proud.

The Greek way, they're still people, but you're not really killing them, since someone might rescue them like Oedipus or something.

What would happen if she HAD caused the death of a fruit bat? I'm not familiar with Hawaii, but on Guam I believe this is now a crime, since they're running out. They were eating them up too fast.