Hopkins man convicted in death girlfriend's fetus gets life in ...

First, good riddance to this POS. Hope he gets raped daily.

Second, doesn't anyone proofread anything at the PP anymore? The headline sounds like this guy killed 'death's girlfriend's fetus'...as in death, the guy in the robe with the sickle. In that case, I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad thing. Less soul stealing type creatures is good with me.

Let's get the facts straight. An abortion is something a woman asks for. Some loser paying $40 to a friend to hit her in the stomach, so he dosen't have to be responsible for a child is not an abortion, it;s premeditated murder.

jim wrote:

So the libs will cry and light candles before the death sentence of a convicted murderer on death row but when it comes to an unborn child they pretty much don't care either way . This is why I stay away from the right/left philosophy and try to just use common sense instead .And my common sense says that if you intentionally punch a woman in the stomach and you wind up killing what was already in the makings of a human being, your life should be taken away . That's just my opinion though .. doesnt mean a thing but it looks like I wasn't the only one thinking this way .

The libs will insist that it is a "fetus" and not an "unborn baby" because it will weigh less on their conscience after they kill it.

Interesting they call this one a fetus, yet it was alive for 10 days, but in the deer story, it is called a baby.

Robert wrote:

Whoa! How can he be charged with murder? Did the lady die? I can understand assault, but c'mon! The fetus isn't really "life" is it?
If he had worn a white smock and had a medical degree hanging on the wall it wouldn't be murder. It would be covered by insurance.

Attacking a pregnant woman really isnt that serious in your little mind, is it. One shudders to think how you treat a woman who isnt pregnant. I have fear for every woman who ever has to deal with a cad like you

ZenBirdist wrote:

Six months into a preganacy, I think the headline is misleading by using the word 'fetus'. It was an unborn child who died as a result of the two blows to his/her mother's stomach and a life sentence is appropriate.

It wasn't a fetus or unborn child. The attack caused a premature birth and the baby died of injuries 10 days later.

$40!?! just think what these thugs will do for $400, or even $4000.

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't a fetus or unborn child. The attack caused a premature birth and the baby died of injuries 10 days later.

You are correct. The attack was on an unborn child, resulting in the death of a premature infant. I still am not registering the word "fetus" as appropriate in any way to the story, especially in consideration of the child's premature birth and tragically short life outside the womb.

ZenBirdist wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct. The attack was on an unborn child, resulting in the death of a premature infant. I still am not registering the word "fetus" as appropriate in any way to the story, especially in consideration of the child's premature birth and tragically short life outside the womb.

\

Fetus is the correct medical term for an unborn baby after the embrio stage until birth.

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>\
Fetus is the correct medical term for an unborn baby after the embrio stage until birth.

I concede that I'm not using the correct medical terms, and I thank you for the correction. Whether correctly termed a fetus or incorrectly called a baby, the tragedy is the same. I'm not trying to draw any lines from this article to the issue of abortion. The depravity of punching a pregnant woman in the stomach remains intolerable to me whatever we choose to call the little one who died as a result. Z

Did anybody read the article? It says "Prosecutors say he arranged the events that led to his daughter's premature birth in 2007 and her death 10 days later." The child was BORN, not unborn, therefore it had rights of personhood. It even lived for 10 days. The charges were correct in that a life - not a potential life - was taken. There is a difference.

sock wrote:

<quoted text>
Attacking a pregnant woman really isnt that serious in your little mind, is it. One shudders to think how you treat a woman who isnt pregnant. I have fear for every woman who ever has to deal with a cad like you

Hey Sock, I'm sorry that my sarcasm was apparently too sophisticated for you. I'll try to make it plain.

(The following is for Sock only so that he/she can figure out that I'm neither in support of violence against women nor violence against the unborn.)

It surprises me that this person was charged with murder. He assaulted the woman, and she did not die so an assault charge was warranted. In our messed up society, many consider unborn children to not be "life" and therefore it would seem that the man did not murder anybody, although I personally believe he did and believe he should have been convicted of that charge.

Doctors (wearing white smocks, get it Sock?) cause the death of unborn children and don't get charged with a crime. The procedure is even be covered by insurance in some cases.

There Sock, do you understand? My wife and two daughters and many other females happen to think I'm a great guy. As previously stated, I oppose violence against women and against unborn children.

Now can we be friends?

Jim R wrote:

He should not be charged with anythng more than assault. The fetus wasn't born therefore it is not a life, per your liberal point of view. I would never have convicted him as long as we still hold to the abortion stance created in "Roe-v-Wade"

The assault caused the premature birth of the child which died 10 day later.

It was a life and would of been a couple of years old if the child wasn't killed.

You may not call an unborn child a life, but it is still a human being. I wonder, has your life started yet?

Gramma13 wrote:

Let's get the facts straight. An abortion is something a woman asks for. Some loser paying $40 to a friend to hit her in the stomach, so he dosen't have to be responsible for a child is not an abortion, it;s premeditated murder.

Using your logic -

If you think that it was premeditated murder to kill HIS child, then the mother is also guilty of premeditated murder when she pays the abortionist to kill HER child. In both cases, the child is dead. He paid $40 and the mother would have paid $400. The results are the same.

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>\
Fetus is the correct medical term for an unborn baby after the embrio stage until birth.

The premature birth of the baby ended the medical term, fetus. Maybe, if we leave the medical personnel use medical terms and let the general public use the common term baby.

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
Using your logic -
If you think that it was premeditated murder to kill HIS child, then the mother is also guilty of premeditated murder when she pays the abortionist to kill HER child. In both cases, the child is dead. He paid $40 and the mother would have paid $400. The results are the same.

No, she's not. Abortion is leagal. Whether you agree with it or not. That is a decision made by her, and is between her and her God. It is not a decision for someone else to make for her.

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
The premature birth of the baby ended the medical term, fetus. Maybe, if we leave the medical personnel use medical terms and let the general public use the common term baby.

I know that some times it's easier to respond to a single post rather then read the entire discussion, but we already covered the baby being born and dieing 10 days later.

P.S. Using the correct term in not (and should not be) limited to medical personnel. An unborn baby is a fetus, her having the baby does not change that prior to birth an unborn baby is correctly called a fetus.

Gramma13 wrote:

<quoted text>No, she's not. Abortion is leagal. Whether you agree with it or not. That is a decision made by her, and is between her and her God. It is not a decision for someone else to make for her.

Both actions would be premeditated.
Both actions result in the death of the child.
Both actions are morally wrong.

JTY wrote:

<quoted text>
I know that some times it's easier to respond to a single post rather then read the entire discussion, but we already covered the baby being born and dieing 10 days later.
P.S. Using the correct term in not (and should not be) limited to medical personnel. An unborn baby is a fetus, her having the baby does not change that prior to birth an unborn baby is correctly called a fetus.

Most mothers feel that they are having a baby, a living human being.

Calling the baby by known medical terms, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, would be useful in the medical field. Generally, most women would call their unborn child a baby.

downtowner wrote:

This case illustrates the legal inconsistency behind the viability/late term abortion legality. When a thug pays $40 to induce premature delivery by a blow to the abdomen and the baby dies it is murder. When a late term abortionist in Kansas (or anywhere) injects the baby with hypertonic saline and inserts laminaria into the cervix to induce labor it is a legally sanctioned medical procedure. The law protects viable delivered premature infants after 22 weeks gestation as individuals, even finding double homicide if the mother is murdered and the baby is undelivered. But still the law in some states allows termination of life of a viable baby before delivery at the discretion of the mother with a doctor's opinion that continuing the pregnancy would substantially harm the mother. The doc's opinion is loose and as easy to come by as a Rx for medical marijuana in California.

Your last sentence implies that you either simply have no respect whatsoever for the medical profession, or that you have evidence about doctors freely and easily handing out permission for late-term abortions. I don't respect either of those possible stances by you.