So how the hell are you convicted of murder for doing your job? Not sure how the kid being born alive makes a difference when that same kids were just as alive seconds before? Maybe the should have tazed the kids in utero. The difference between a legal procedure and murder is seconds. And how incompetent do you have to be to fuck up killing something? Damn.
for the record, this is a local case (to me). babies survived late term abortions (in other words, they were actually "delivered"). their lives were then extinguished.
if you cannot discern the difference between a legal abortion (whether you agree with the abortion laws or not is irrelevant) and what occurred in these cases, there is not point in having a thread or a discussion.
The blur is, in my opinion, why is it suddenly heinous once the child is outside the mother? What is the moral difference between slitting the throat of a child a second before it is born versus a second after?
right; "damn the law". start an abortion thread dude. at least there you won't argue in circles.
even the late term abortions in this case were illegal. these babies were actually delivered. these were not "abortions". it was no different than a mother giving birth in a hospital and the doctor severing the spine thereafter.
damn the law. yet the OP was about the law.
again, start and abortion thread and argue in circles there. i pointed out what the problem with THIS case was and why they were charged with murder, UNDER THE LAW.
The details are spelled out enough. Basically, these nimrods are really bad at doing abortion, like it's hard or something. So rather than finishing the kid off in utero, they finished the kid off outside the womb, supposedly born viable. Of course the second before they were in utero, and just as fucking viable. The difference is that in one second they go from performing a legal procedure to being convicted of murder....That's a pretty drastic line to draw don't you think? After all the action is the same, it's just the location that changes.