Posted on 08/02/2004 3:08:49 PM PDT by Heff
Here is part of a Fox News story about the murdered woman in Salt Lake.
Lori Hacking, 27, had apparently learned she was five-weeks pregnant just days before she vanished and told friends and relatives, though Dinse said police still had no proof.
He said if investigators find her body and her pregnancy is confirmed, police would consider bringing an additional charge against her husband.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why???
Doctors do this sort of thing every day.
You didn’t know?
Doctors are Saints in Surgical Garb!
(Sorry M.A.S.H.)
Practicing without a license. It is illegal to abort a fetus without the license that says you can do so. Sorta like swabbing an injection port with mecuricome for a lethal injection - the result is the same is it not? He's not gonna live long enough to get an infection.
Sam Shepard ring a bell?
Doctors are not charged with murder (I assume you are referring to abortion) because they undertake that action with the informed consent of the mother, and it is the mother's constitutional right to have an abortion. Mark Hacking, though, obviously did not have Lori's consent to kill her (and thus the child), so he would be charged with the death of that child.
So what the law says, then, is that a fetus is human or non-human based solely on the opinion of the mother?
Bingo...we have a winner.
you can be charged even with consent (like "Dr" Jack Kevorkian was)
The Fugitive and Sheppard were found innocent in the end, (I think!)
Life, and liberty.
are indirectly in agreement with the idea that the parent has proprietary rights to the child and can thus decide to violate the fetus's right to life; IOW, the child's unalienable rights can be trumped by the parent.
This seems a stretch to me. I believe in parental rights for their child to LIVE with them. Not the same as a "I brought them into this world and I have the RIGHT to take them out". Abortion and me deciding where my child lives seem two different things.
I believe that a child's inalienable rights CAN and SHOULD be trumped by the parents. My kid's "inalienable right" to pursue happiness stops at the second candy bar, at riding their bicycle on the interstate, and at whether or not they will do their homework and chores.
Somehow, taking a life doesn't compare IMHO to where a child lives and goes to school.
Unalienable rights all.
Your child may not have the right to decide where he or she wants to live, but they do have a right to have their unalienable right to Liberty protected.
In which case, should a parent decide to take their child into a life of slavery, the child's unalienable right to Liberty trumps the parent's right.
Should the State trump the mother's choice to abort?
And if so, on what grounds?
Ask Edwards, I'm sure he would argue otherwise. After all, thats how he became a multi-millionaire and you my friend are helping to pay him.......
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean should the state outlaw abortion?
Doctors are not charged with murder (I assume you are referring to abortion) because they undertake that action with the informed consent of the mother, and it is the mother's constitutional right to have an abortion. Mark Hacking, though, obviously did not have Lori's consent to kill her (and thus the child), so he would be charged with the death of that child.
Really?
Where is this article that states that a woman has a constitutional right to murder, or allow someone else to murder her unborn child?
I'd like to see it.
I think you know what I mean. There is no explicit right to it mentioned in the Constitution, but that little decision known as Roe v. Wade has enshrined it.
Now, Sheppard was found guilty and did many years in prison. He was exonerated many years after his death, however.
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.