SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (51617)6/20/2002 5:16:39 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
There is a fascinating moral dilemma here, IMO.

If she had terminated this same life six or even three or, depending on state law, maybe even two days before the birth, there would have been no issue.

Presumably, if she didn't want the child, and knew she was having it, she could have done that.

But the moment it exited the birth canal, what was her absolute legal right to terminate its life become a potential charge of murder in the first degree.

I find that something worth pondering.



To: Neocon who wrote (51617)6/20/2002 5:47:00 PM
From: J. C. Dithers  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
This would entail reducing her sentence

This is a downside of mandatory sentence guidelines, which Massachusetts has. If she is convicted of murder, as charged, it is life without parole.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News