Now with a little time. I guess what I see in this are the things that are slightly off kilter. One of the comments talks about the guy in question not being licensed. It is fascinating to me that if he is unlicensed on Monday, and does one of the things he is accused of, it is murder. Having a license would clear him of one of the many horrors he is accused of. If on tuesday he has his license, then it is legal. A piece of paper determines murder, from legal, it is just interesting.
Another one, that you mention Bill Mattock,
"However, although there is a lot of gray area surrounding people's beliefs about when a fetus becomes a person for the purposes of applying legal protection due any living person, I do believe there is no doubt at all; a baby born and breathing, removed from the mother entirely, is in no sense anything but a human being. Killing the child at that point can never be considered an abortion.
If this guy had done the killing, while the baby had been in the womb, it would possibly be considered a third trimester abortion, which some people say is controversial, but is a gray area. The seperation of, would it be a distance measurement, as in the distance of the abdominal cavity to the outside world, or a time measurement, how long outside the womb that changes a legal procedure to murder. It is interesting to me think about. If he had killed the same baby that you discuss above, in the womb, that would be another legal problem he could possibly avoid.
that in this story of horrors, that the fact he didn't have a license is mentioned, possibly, I would need to go back and look at the story again, seems funny to me. It would be like reading a story about a guy who steals a car, drives through a crowd and killing a whole bunch of people, while he is firing an automatic weapon at more innocent people. When he is stopped you find he had human remains in the car and then among these horrors, the reporter states that on top of all this, it was discovered that the man did not possess a current drivers license.
Bill Mattock, In your posts you do a good job of sticking to the details, in a clinical or analytical way. That is your style and it is a good way to be. It isn't mine, I get a lot of grief sometimes, that's the way it goes. If I see something I think is "off kilter" I like to ask questions. One question would be, with your definition of life, above, would a baby that survives an abortion, to your definition, be required to recieve life saving measures? I personally think it fits in with the story about this ghoul, since he murdered fully formed babies outside the womb. that's all.
It would in fact be another crime, if he failed to provide life saving measures to a fully born but injured baby, wouldn't it?
