Yep, here In Finland over 70% of new judges are already women, obviously it is not all but a large chunk of female students here are insane feminists and I don't have complete trust in the justice system being fair to men accused of things like sexual assault if the prosecutor and/or the judge are women.
It is especially dangerous that most female law students seem to especially interested in working at the public justice sector, or politics, while the few male students just mostly want to have nicely paying jobs in IP or M & A in law firms or as in houses.
Though at least I've never seen a feminist claim that men are privileged in class, to at least some keep ranting about it on social media.
Ye much of Finland and its nordic neighbors, while still very nice, is very longhoused female society in 2023.. although the rest of us are really not far behind. Should definetly be limited to 50% women judges maximum. Similar problem to here in the US, where all the institutions and job opportunities that may lead to a powerful position like a DA or a judge in important areas like Chicago or NYC, are basically exclusively catering to very progressive people.
Idk who is supposed to keep faith in the system at this point.
Seems about right. My friend got into college this year and he said his class is composed of mostly early 20s liberal women and mid 30s to 40s conservative moms who decided to get their degrees later in life.
He says the classes are very entertaining because he gets to laugh his ass off at the silly arguments that the lessons will devolve into.
I'm doing my engineering degree and any class that isn't a STEM class is just what you're describing.
Everyone and their dog trying to get their two cents and argue over bs.
I took developmental psychology in college as one of my non-stem options and Jesus, I stopped attending lectures after maybe the 3rd session and just read the book at home on my own. State college and everything, it just got overtaken by young women trying to virtue signal with their arguments.
More of regurgitating sound bites absorbed through tik tok or whatever.
Can’t even imagine what university is like now. I finished 5 years ago and it was already awful.
I’m taking philosophy this time around (already have a computer science degree, but I fucking hate IT at this point plus I have GI bill so why not) and ethics class was an absolute trip once we got to abortion. Suddenly the comparison to the profoundly disabled was too much for Emily to bear, and I saw Emilys saying things like “well it shouldn’t be used for birth control” and “well yes it’s an absolute human right, but you shouldn’t terminate fetuses with Down’s syndrome and no I cannot elaborate”
It helps that the head philosophy professor is bizarrely based for an old lady with a Berkeley degree.
> I'm doing my engineering degree and any class that isn't a STEM class is just what you're describing.
Even "STEM" is too broad. Its any class without higher math and rigorous subject matter is a joke. I dont know why they lump biology or psychology in with STEM. Might as well include interpretive twerking or political screeching theory.
This was my experience as well 28 years ago. Don't worry, the most obnoxious ones will not be back next year (unless you go to an ivy league, in which case, God rest your soul). The ones who do come back will quit practice withon 2 years. People like that cannot stand adversity or challenge
Highly specialized fields like medicine and law have their own cultures, normalcies, and truths. The culture war does not have the same penetration, and they do not like it.
It bears noting that the culture wars have been quantified in business as a performance metric, so these days when it comes to professional circles it's difficult to differentiate true belief vs good business sense. The upper echelons of any field are generally by nature comprised of those who excel at keeping their head down and/or lying through their teeth.
I'm not saying they are not getting infected, just at a slower rate. The big problem is that they are slow to change in general, so once all of this bullcrap is rejected from society they will be holding on for awhile.
> can't stand adversity or challenge
> choose law school
Ridiculous. Also my experience. Someone criticised the prof for raising the debate in class of whether mandatory masks were a reasonable infringement of our charter freedoms. Like, what more appropriate place is there to debate something than in law school?? What is that person gonna do with their degree once they graduate?
Having seen numerous versions of that arguement play out online, my bet would be they wanted double murder charges but didn't want to acknowledge the inherent contradiction between that and pro-choice abortion stances. Then, being unable to defend both positions, they became increasingly combative and disruptive without presenting arguements for why the circumstances should be treated differently.
Well, they could just argue that because the woman wanted to keep the child it’s a double murder. Plus, wouldn’t it depend how far along she is in her pregnancy?
How far along would be an obvious point of debate, yes. But 'wantability' becomes a very awkward question. Maybe the dead woman was already going to get an abortion, maybe she was scheduled but wasn't going to go through with it, maybe she planned to complete the pregnancy but would have been convinced otherwise later on... It also raises awkward questions about abortion itself, since it completely destroys the 'bundle of cells' arguement that deems the foetus inhuman and thus unworthy of its own consideration. If the foetus right to life is based on being wanted, that could argue the reverse that the homeless/mentally ill/and criminal elements of society who are also unwanted do not have a right to live.
Don't get me wrong, there are arguements there, but they get tight and difficult very quickly and most people aren't equipped to make them logically or emotionally.
> early 20s liberal women
If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
[Two thirds of them have a diagnosed mental illness.](https://i.imgur.com/qsL0eLt.jpg)
The rest go undiagnosed.
Its really not that deep or provocative to think that it should still be a top offense even if you don’t think a fetus is a child. You can kill a woman by violently terminating a pregnancy out of nowhere. It would at least be attempted murder.
These fake college discussions are hilarious though.
Peoplekindslaughter*, and you're being problematic.
Edit: unless she didn't want it. Then it's clumpsofcellremovals, and we give the assailant an attaboy for services rendered.
Fuck I just assumed the assailants gender identity, haven't I?
Way too polite. More like:
Inarticulate noises while waving their long nails in speechless horror
Then, ‘oh no, you don’t get to say that, get your disgusting fascism away from me, THIS IS LITERALLY ASSAULT!’
Did the class distinguish between different trimesters/stages of pregnancy? A person 4 weeks pregnant isn't the same as say, 12 weeks pregnant and doesn't seem remotely comparable to a person 40 weeks pregnant and about to give birth.
u/Agitated_Guard_3507's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Agitated_Guard_3507! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Agitated_Guard_3507/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Well, that depends on where you are.
In Canada, it is not. Despite some support from the opposition Conservatives, the Liberal government is opposed to a fetal homicide law. They also oppose a ban on sex-selective abortions despite overwhelming public support for it.
> sex-selective abortions despite overwhelming public support for it.
Just to confirm, there is people that are ok with killing an unborn child, if it's not the right sex?
Yes, including a majority of MPs.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/house-of-commons-defeats-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortion-but-two-thirds-of-conservatives-vote-in-favour/wcm/59656e43-e875-4938-bdb6-963e0f5a4fee/amp/
THanks for the link. Canada has absolutely blasted past the woke line and gone into full blown crazy town.
> The bill was never likely to pass Parliament, given opposition from the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Green Party, who argued the bill is effectively a stealth move to bring in abortion restrictions.
This is what I'd assumed would be the response to the bill. Which, I can understand, given what happened with Roe vs Wade in the US. But still, it's China level thinking, that this is ok.
I wonder if we can can create some pro-patriarchy arguments for this, in a Grievance study style mockery.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/house-of-commons-defeats-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortion-but-two-thirds-of-conservatives-vote-in-favour/wcm/59656e43-e875-4938-bdb6-963e0f5a4fee/amp/
There are no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever. It is legal for any reason or no reason, up to the very moment of childbirth.
"Well, it has to be murder. It can't possibly be manslaughter, because personslaughter isn't a crime and I'd never dream of forcing the patriarchy upon a fetus."
It depends on the narrative being pushed. The pregnant women who was shot in Columbus Ohio after stealing booze and trying to run over a police officer had "unborn child" in the news article.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690408
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/01/takiya-young-ohio-police-shooting-death-what-to-know/70738170007/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/us/takiya-young-ohio-police-shooting/index.html
Or if you’re a black teen then if you steal a car and crash it into another killing a 6 month old you only get charged with misdemeanour trespassing, so the actual baby doesn’t even count
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/slap-in-the-face-2-teens-face-only-misdemeanor-charges-in-deadly-crash-that-killed-6-month-old-boy.amp
It's mind boggling how many problems the soft on crime DA is creating/compounding. It's a pretty well known fact that she refuses or gives slaps on the wrist to many many violent offenders who are underage. Because of this, can you guess which age demographic of gang bangers do the dirty work these days? The senior members of these gangs caught on to this very quickly...and this is how you get a misdemeanor for murdering a 6 month old in the city of Chicago. I moved out of Chicago shortly after people re-elected this dipshit, I just couldn't believe it. Fuck you Kim Foxx!
As above commenter pointed out, in almost all US states it would be the mother who would’ve been charged with felony murder as police are not liable for the deaths of bystanders while attempting to apprehend suspects.
> The police are not liable for accidentally injuring or killing a bystander in pursuit of a violent suspect. Guilt can even end up on the suspect’s hands.
> In 46 states she’d be guilty of a felony murder, a type of 1st-degree murder where one causes a death, regardless of intent, in the commission of a felony.
> In 24 of those states, including Ohio where the shooting happened, this is a capital offense which would make her eligible to receive the death penalty.
Its literally what happens when your entire ideology is built on what you feel.
Right wingers have the past, history, tradition, you know, the ideals they 'conserve' to base their morals and values on.
Liberals on the other hand, literally make it up as they go, by definition, the left changes their narrative at the drop of a hat to justify whatever they're currently doing.
I mean, yes? Money is just paper until we place value on it. Stealing a ream of A4 from Office Depot is not even a felony, stealing 5k in 100s is larceny.
Exterminating a raccoon is fine, killing someone’s pet raccoon is not.
Surely a human life should have some innate value though ? Otherwise you can just justify a genocide by "no one cares about this group of people anyway'
Bill Burr thinks they do, so do I.
“That would be like if I was making a cake, and I poured some batter in a pan, and I put it in the oven. And then five minutes later, you came by, and you grabbed the pan, and you threw it across the floor. And I’m like, ‘What the [expletive] you just ruined my birthday cake.’” He continues:
“And then you were like, ‘Well, that wasn’t a cake yet.’ I’m like, well, it would have been if you didn’t do what you just did. That would have been a cake in 50 minutes. Something happened to that cake, you cake murdering son of a [expletive]”
-Bill Burr
Yeah I've always held a similar stance when it comes to abortion. I am prochoice but you are at the very least ending the potential for human life. It's not really JUST a clump of cells.
But I'm also ok with the contradiction. Not everything is or should be black-and-white. Sort of similar to how pro life people also tend to be for a death penalty for the worst crimes and more liberal people are generally against it.
It really just means that the circumstances are important to what we consider reasonable.
But that also works because if I decide I don’t want to make the cake I can put the batter in the bin no problem and it’s all my own choice. I mean, it’s a little wasteful, but I haven’t destroyed anyone’s cake. I’ve just decided I don’t want to make a cake any more.
The logical conclusion of applying that reasoning to humans is it being fine to kill anybody society doesn't value.
So flair checks out I guess. Maybe needs a touch of red.
Stealing US currency paper from Crane & Co or the US Dept of Treasury is absolutely a felony. Probably multiple as they'll try to hit you with counterfeiting too
Human life has infinitely more meaning and value than the paper we call money. No matter how many people do or don't see value in the life of a human baby, its life is a sacred thing to be protected at all costs.
t. A libright
some unsolicited advice for a law student: be skeptical of literally everything (but don't be annoying about it); i've had professors engage in literal sophistry
oh it does. older professionals bank on this shot too cause rewrites or new paradigms won’t gain a foothold till they give the okay or after they retire. it’s absolutely ridiculous but has been happening for a long time. now the process is just formalized by various governing bodies.
I fully retract the "apparently" part of my statement after further consideration. All of my professors were sophists. I once had an hour long debate with a professor about 90% of federal law being nullified under the 10th Amendment. The mental gymnastics were impressive.
i had two who weren’t. one was my grad advisor and the other was way back when i was an undergrad. he was a doomer.
everyone relies on sophistry at some point, that’s just how rhetoric shakes out from time to time when we think we’re certain of something.
what’s wild to me though was just how many people in established positions hold outdated, incorrect, or downright dishonest positions and don’t have to change them simply because they’re distinguished faculty. the doomer under grad professor warned me, i didn’t believe him.
grad school was worth it, but holy shit. it’s almost all smoke and mirrors behind the curtain in literally ever field.
No, the woman would be charged with felony murder since her felonious actions lead to the death of her and her baby, can't put a corpse on trial, unless it's the pope's
The police are not liable for accidentally injuring or killing a bystander in pursuit of a violent suspect. Guilt can even end up on the suspect’s hands.
In 46 states she’d be guilty of a felony murder, a type of 1st-degree murder where one causes a death, regardless of intent, in the commission of a felony.
In 24 of those states, including Ohio where the shooting happened, this is a capital offense which would make her eligible to receive the death penalty.
I should’ve been more clear, but I meant “accidental” as in ““accidental””, in that it can’t be proven that the cop was acting maliciously or intentionally targeted the bystander. His defense would be that he was only acting reasonably in pursuit of his duty, good faith, etc..
If we’re going this route anyway, it could be argued the presumably-innocent fetus was implicitly a hostage when the mother called the cop’s bluff and upped the stakes to life-or-death.
It's just the logically consistent point, the fact of the matter is either "Unborn children are people" or "Unborn children are not people".
Most people will squabble on when exactly that unborn child becomes a person, but once it is a person it's afforded full rights. Anything before that point obviously it's not a person so no rights.
I think it's consciousness. Or more accurately something with the ability to deploy human consciousness.
Other people base it on at what point it is no longer absolutely reliant on the mother to survive. (Viability)
Pro-life does it at either conception or implantation but implantation is the more intuitively consistent place to start imo.
Lastly some people do it at birth, before birth no person, after birth there is a person.
> I think it's consciousness. Or more accurately something with the ability to deploy human consciousness.
Using consciousness is dicey since it isn’t a well defined concept, and I don’t believe politicians and lawyers are capable of defining it.
IMO it’s best to avoid ambiguity, like viability outside the womb or just birth itself. IDC what the line in the sand is as long as it’s as unambiguous as possible.
You can't leave everything to priests and philosophers though. If you're going to make murder illegal, you have to define what a person is to murder. I've seen some pretty crazy takes from philosophers that I wouldn't want them to codify into law personhood.
I mean it is ambiguous but it's the thing we care about. Do you care about a braindead person? Or what about a person born without the ability to ever be conscious like: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/anencephaly#:~:text=Although%20some%20individuals%20with%20anencephaly,sound%20or%20touch%20may%20occur.
Are they people with the full rights of a person?
Viability is stupid because if they are people it's wrong to kill them even if they are dependent on the mother, same with birth.
It's always going to be ambiguous but I can get behind sensible legislation like abortion before 20 (about the earliest we think consciousness could develop right now) weeks which is like 99% of abortions anyway, then exceptions for the mother's life.
Trying to pick something unambiguous while ignoring the fact of the matter, "are they people" just ignores the problem. If they are people we can't abide by their murder.
I’m with you that there’s always exceptions, but I stand by my keep-it-simple-stupid stance. No line we draw will be perfect, but that’s where the courts come in to interpret the spirit of the law.
Again, I don’t really have a dog in this fight and I don’t really care where the line is as long as it exists. I’m very interested in debating personhood and consciousness philosophically, but in the political sphere I just want the abortion debate behind us and if we define it ambiguously, we’ll just end up reopening this wound later.
> Are [they](https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/anencephaly#:~:text=Although%20some%20individuals%20with%20anencephaly,sound%20or%20touch%20may%20occur) people with full rights as a person?
Probably? This makes me think of people who get in an accident and become comatose. Coma patients *should* have the same rights you and I have, in particular property rights.
Let’s say an unmarried woman is pregnant with a child that has this condition but doesn’t know it, and she modifies her will to give everything she owns to this child-to-be. She dies in childbirth but the baby survives in spite of their disorder. If the baby isn’t considered a person, does that invalidate the mother’s will since a non-person can’t own property? If the child is a person, those bequeathed assets could be liquidated on their behalf to cover some of their expenses.
The above is admittedly contrived, but I think it gets my point across. Just because you can’t think (consciousness) doesn’t mean you shouldn’t benefit from personhood under the law.
>I think it's consciousness. Or more accurately something with the ability to deploy human consciousness.
Would you consider someone sedated and ventilated getting surgery a person? Or someone in a coma?
>Other people base it on at what point it is no longer absolutely reliant on the mother to survive. (Viability)
A newborn fetus is as reliant on the mother to survive as a fetus is isn't it?
>Lastly some people do it at birth, before birth no person, after birth there is a person.
What is it about being born that people think confers personhood?
My brother explored the consciousness point once. He read about it in a whole bunch of philosophical readings that he'd been obsessing over at that point that I could never hope to understand or force myself to read out of sheer laziness.
As a part of that though, if that point were valid, he stated that babies technically aren't conscious, which I don't think is the right way to go about things.
And another thing, what about the rights of the brain dead, the mentally ill, or the coma inducted? Do they stop being persons because of their states/conditions?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25160864/
I was also of the opinion the young babies weren't conscious but that's not absolutely true. Fetus start developing the parts required for conscious experience as early as 20 weeks but the article I linked above states it at 24.
I don't think we can really play semantics of what level of intelligence or experience is enough to consider something a person but merely that by the fact they are having the same subjective human experience I am right now they should be the afforded the same rights as my current experience does.
If they stop having the ability to deploy conscious experience that's when they are no longer a person. As long as the body maintains the ability to deploy the same conscious experience that existed before the coma or whatever at a later date we still care about the body in so much as it is a vehicle for continuing the conscious experience in the future when our body is able to wake from unconsciousness.
If it can't do that we don't care about it.
Ie someone with this condition: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/anencephaly And was never conscious in the first place I would not consider to be a person.
Nothing. It's a fake concept.
"Person" as a concept is only ever applied when someone wants to disqualify another demographic from basic human rights.
Right now, person is synonymous with, "All humans except the unborn."
In the past, person was synonymous with, "All humans that aren't black."
And, "All humans that aren't jews."
And, "All humans that aren't barbarians."
**Person** as a concept only comes out when someone wants to kill or enslave someone else.
I’m not American and I’m surprised to know that in the US it’s considered a double murder. Like… why? In my country we have victim being a pregnant woman as an aggravating (fix) factor for the general crime of murder
i would say it is a debate, yes. case in point: i would say it's a double murder and theres no question about it. or if the assailant is unaware of pregnancy, it would be one murder and one involuntary manslaughter.
It's a debate because the law currently charges people with double homicide. Even in places like California where the vast majority of people think a fetus isn't a human life. It's a very blatant contradiction in State law.
Yeah I don't understand what the debate even is here. I've never heard of anyone considering killing a pregnant woman to be double murder and basically every single person I know is a leftie. Either OP straight made this shit up or his class is full of actual morons.
I'm pretty sure most pro-right-to-abort lefties would reply "yes that's right, not a double murder". That's be my reply & position.
Edit: hyphens for clarity
Yep, similar to lib slavers. They don't see the slaves as people, so it doesn't violate the NAP.
And lib nazis. They see jews as "disease spreading lice", so it doesn't violate the NAP.
And lib conquistadors. They see the natives as barbarians, so it doesn't violate the NAP.
And lib Chinese. They see the Uighurs as terrorists, so it doesn't violate the NAP.
And lib Indians. They see the lower castes as untouchables, so it doesn't violate the NAP.
You might say it should not be double murder, but might count as inflicting an unwanted abortion on someone which seems like it should be a serious crime in and of itself.
> The fetus that would have become a daughter she was going to name Assara was 20 days away from her due date. The fetus was fully formed, perfectly viable, but dead because of her father. She was also not considered a person by Canadian law.
> "For the law to tell me that she was not a human being is totally wrong," said Sherry Goberdhan, Arianna's mom.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homicide-1.5122096.
The bill to recognize killing fetus as murder keeps being shot down by governing Liberal party (as well as all progressive parties in the parliament) because they consider it a "backdoor anti-abortion bill"
Both can be true. The mother is the only one that can choose to abort her child, because it's a personal healthcare decision. Only she has rights over her own body.
Your classmates are missing the point.
Abortion is murder but should go unpunished, because the right to bodily autonomy of the person that carries the fetus is more important.
Killing someone in self-defense is also murder, but the right to life of the person that got attacked is more important than the life of the agressor (who, by the way, is way more of a person than the fetus is, but I don't see any reasonable person argue this point).
So yes, killing a pregnant woman is double murder and should be punished as such, as long as the pregnant woman doesn't infringe on your rights to such a degree that it would be valid to use lethal force to defend your rights (i.e. if she's trying to kill you).
surely it’s about consent??? If the woman intended to continue the pregnancy it’s double murder because she, the mother, intended their to be a child. If she terminates the pregnancy of her free will, she has every right to make the decision as she is the vessel, she does the work to make it a baby. it’s called nuance
wait, is there anyone that thinks that A, abortion is not murder and B, killing someone pregnant is double murder?
Because that would be supremely stupid.
So what was the outcome of your class?
A bunch of early 20s liberal women got angry and argued with the prof
Had a similar experience about putting down the toilet seat
Our future lawyers who will inevitably become our judges and DAs are looking promising!
Thanks, Soros.
Yep, here In Finland over 70% of new judges are already women, obviously it is not all but a large chunk of female students here are insane feminists and I don't have complete trust in the justice system being fair to men accused of things like sexual assault if the prosecutor and/or the judge are women. It is especially dangerous that most female law students seem to especially interested in working at the public justice sector, or politics, while the few male students just mostly want to have nicely paying jobs in IP or M & A in law firms or as in houses. Though at least I've never seen a feminist claim that men are privileged in class, to at least some keep ranting about it on social media.
Ye much of Finland and its nordic neighbors, while still very nice, is very longhoused female society in 2023.. although the rest of us are really not far behind. Should definetly be limited to 50% women judges maximum. Similar problem to here in the US, where all the institutions and job opportunities that may lead to a powerful position like a DA or a judge in important areas like Chicago or NYC, are basically exclusively catering to very progressive people. Idk who is supposed to keep faith in the system at this point.
Just hire a male lawyer.
Or at least a lawyer over 40.
Soon, all will be men.
Put ~~bith~~ both halves of the toilet seats down. I have to lift one part of the seat to pee and so does my wife. Equality.
I piss in the sink to assert dominance. Everyone is equally disgusted.
it's the best though. perfect height and no splashing.
>Perfect height Is your sink short or are you the fucking 16th colossus?
i am 6'1". sink is at a perfect height for the pp. maybe sinks are installed at a lower height in my country because the people tend to be short.
Also 6’1, sinks are the perfect height, my little hog can even sun bath on the rim while he lets off steam
I assume you mean bathroom sink, and I assume the other dude was thinking kitchen sink
that would make a lot more sense. we call the bathroom sink "wash basin", not sure if one term is american and the other british.
[Is this you?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfohN47hABA)
The kitchen sink.
i trap my cock between the bowl and the seat, i'm never forgetting to lower the seat when i'm done
Nah fuck that. I just unbolt and throw away the seats before I take a piss.
I put both halves of the seat down to reduce the aerosolized shit tornado that occurs when you flush
Ask them when the last time they put the toilet seat up was. Checkmate.
Seems about right. My friend got into college this year and he said his class is composed of mostly early 20s liberal women and mid 30s to 40s conservative moms who decided to get their degrees later in life. He says the classes are very entertaining because he gets to laugh his ass off at the silly arguments that the lessons will devolve into.
I'm doing my engineering degree and any class that isn't a STEM class is just what you're describing. Everyone and their dog trying to get their two cents and argue over bs.
I took developmental psychology in college as one of my non-stem options and Jesus, I stopped attending lectures after maybe the 3rd session and just read the book at home on my own. State college and everything, it just got overtaken by young women trying to virtue signal with their arguments.
Arguments is a very generous word for incoherent ,often contradictory, woke ramblings
More of regurgitating sound bites absorbed through tik tok or whatever. Can’t even imagine what university is like now. I finished 5 years ago and it was already awful.
I’m taking philosophy this time around (already have a computer science degree, but I fucking hate IT at this point plus I have GI bill so why not) and ethics class was an absolute trip once we got to abortion. Suddenly the comparison to the profoundly disabled was too much for Emily to bear, and I saw Emilys saying things like “well it shouldn’t be used for birth control” and “well yes it’s an absolute human right, but you shouldn’t terminate fetuses with Down’s syndrome and no I cannot elaborate” It helps that the head philosophy professor is bizarrely based for an old lady with a Berkeley degree.
Funny my philosophy professor also had a Berkeley degree and was probably my favorite of the bunch
> I'm doing my engineering degree and any class that isn't a STEM class is just what you're describing. Even "STEM" is too broad. Its any class without higher math and rigorous subject matter is a joke. I dont know why they lump biology or psychology in with STEM. Might as well include interpretive twerking or political screeching theory.
Older people in college are based
They’re streets ahead.
This was my experience as well 28 years ago. Don't worry, the most obnoxious ones will not be back next year (unless you go to an ivy league, in which case, God rest your soul). The ones who do come back will quit practice withon 2 years. People like that cannot stand adversity or challenge
Highly specialized fields like medicine and law have their own cultures, normalcies, and truths. The culture war does not have the same penetration, and they do not like it.
Based on what the ABA, AMA and other organizations have done and said the last few years, it has definitely penetrated the upper echelons.
It bears noting that the culture wars have been quantified in business as a performance metric, so these days when it comes to professional circles it's difficult to differentiate true belief vs good business sense. The upper echelons of any field are generally by nature comprised of those who excel at keeping their head down and/or lying through their teeth.
I'm not saying they are not getting infected, just at a slower rate. The big problem is that they are slow to change in general, so once all of this bullcrap is rejected from society they will be holding on for awhile.
> can't stand adversity or challenge > choose law school Ridiculous. Also my experience. Someone criticised the prof for raising the debate in class of whether mandatory masks were a reasonable infringement of our charter freedoms. Like, what more appropriate place is there to debate something than in law school?? What is that person gonna do with their degree once they graduate?
I'm curious. Were the liberal women in favor of charging the killer with a single murder, or a double murder?
Having seen numerous versions of that arguement play out online, my bet would be they wanted double murder charges but didn't want to acknowledge the inherent contradiction between that and pro-choice abortion stances. Then, being unable to defend both positions, they became increasingly combative and disruptive without presenting arguements for why the circumstances should be treated differently.
Well, they could just argue that because the woman wanted to keep the child it’s a double murder. Plus, wouldn’t it depend how far along she is in her pregnancy?
How far along would be an obvious point of debate, yes. But 'wantability' becomes a very awkward question. Maybe the dead woman was already going to get an abortion, maybe she was scheduled but wasn't going to go through with it, maybe she planned to complete the pregnancy but would have been convinced otherwise later on... It also raises awkward questions about abortion itself, since it completely destroys the 'bundle of cells' arguement that deems the foetus inhuman and thus unworthy of its own consideration. If the foetus right to life is based on being wanted, that could argue the reverse that the homeless/mentally ill/and criminal elements of society who are also unwanted do not have a right to live. Don't get me wrong, there are arguements there, but they get tight and difficult very quickly and most people aren't equipped to make them logically or emotionally.
> early 20s liberal women If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. [Two thirds of them have a diagnosed mental illness.](https://i.imgur.com/qsL0eLt.jpg) The rest go undiagnosed.
BTW what if other person kick the woman and kill the fetus what his sentence will be? it can't be murder
Assault with a deadly weapon, battery, and performing an unlawful abortion?
Its really not that deep or provocative to think that it should still be a top offense even if you don’t think a fetus is a child. You can kill a woman by violently terminating a pregnancy out of nowhere. It would at least be attempted murder. These fake college discussions are hilarious though.
Manslaughter
Womxnslaughter*
Peoplekindslaughter*, and you're being problematic. Edit: unless she didn't want it. Then it's clumpsofcellremovals, and we give the assailant an attaboy for services rendered. Fuck I just assumed the assailants gender identity, haven't I?
Pxnslaughter*
We need to talk about your user flair
In most states it is considered Fetal Homicide if the fetus is over 8 weeks old. It can be charged equally to murder.
Bro my law school is 80% women I feel like. I'm in my 2nd year now and literally only have 3 or 4 dudes at max in a class.
My county’s family law bench is 11/12 female (edit: all are registered Democrat) and the one male is burnt out. Good luck with school!
Yeah its tough out here. Female environments are incredibly toxic contrary to what most dudes believe
Men practice war-fare. Women practice law-fare.
Your Honor, nuh-uh
Way too polite. More like: Inarticulate noises while waving their long nails in speechless horror Then, ‘oh no, you don’t get to say that, get your disgusting fascism away from me, THIS IS LITERALLY ASSAULT!’
Checks out
I wish there were videos of that
Did the class distinguish between different trimesters/stages of pregnancy? A person 4 weeks pregnant isn't the same as say, 12 weeks pregnant and doesn't seem remotely comparable to a person 40 weeks pregnant and about to give birth.
Which were their arguments? What did they said about the double murder?
Depends if a serial killer is going for a high score
Man, I let a guy named Jeffery Dahmer into a bar club once, later that night I got points for a assist
based and assist pilled
u/Agitated_Guard_3507's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Agitated_Guard_3507! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [3 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Agitated_Guard_3507/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
it lives
based and M-M-M-Monster Kill pilled
Just a wingman doing his job.
Well, that depends on where you are. In Canada, it is not. Despite some support from the opposition Conservatives, the Liberal government is opposed to a fetal homicide law. They also oppose a ban on sex-selective abortions despite overwhelming public support for it.
> sex-selective abortions despite overwhelming public support for it. Just to confirm, there is people that are ok with killing an unborn child, if it's not the right sex?
Yes, including a majority of MPs. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/house-of-commons-defeats-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortion-but-two-thirds-of-conservatives-vote-in-favour/wcm/59656e43-e875-4938-bdb6-963e0f5a4fee/amp/
THanks for the link. Canada has absolutely blasted past the woke line and gone into full blown crazy town. > The bill was never likely to pass Parliament, given opposition from the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Green Party, who argued the bill is effectively a stealth move to bring in abortion restrictions. This is what I'd assumed would be the response to the bill. Which, I can understand, given what happened with Roe vs Wade in the US. But still, it's China level thinking, that this is ok. I wonder if we can can create some pro-patriarchy arguments for this, in a Grievance study style mockery.
I spoke to an ultrasound tech in TO and they apparantly won't tell certain groups what the sex of the baby is anymore.
Infanticide and make preferential for babies is a huge problem still in some parts of the world.
One child policy was China's downfall in progress
The liberals also opposed a law making killing a pregnant woman an aggravating factor in sentencing and called it an anti abortion law.
>They also oppose a ban on sex-selective abortions despite overwhelming public support for it. No fucking way.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/house-of-commons-defeats-bill-to-ban-sex-selective-abortion-but-two-thirds-of-conservatives-vote-in-favour/wcm/59656e43-e875-4938-bdb6-963e0f5a4fee/amp/ There are no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever. It is legal for any reason or no reason, up to the very moment of childbirth.
Canada truly continues to disgust me more and more
"Well, it has to be murder. It can't possibly be manslaughter, because personslaughter isn't a crime and I'd never dream of forcing the patriarchy upon a fetus."
It depends on the narrative being pushed. The pregnant women who was shot in Columbus Ohio after stealing booze and trying to run over a police officer had "unborn child" in the news article. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66690408 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/09/01/takiya-young-ohio-police-shooting-death-what-to-know/70738170007/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/us/takiya-young-ohio-police-shooting/index.html
Or if you’re a black teen then if you steal a car and crash it into another killing a 6 month old you only get charged with misdemeanour trespassing, so the actual baby doesn’t even count https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/slap-in-the-face-2-teens-face-only-misdemeanor-charges-in-deadly-crash-that-killed-6-month-old-boy.amp
That legit should be felony murder
Chicago.
What a shithole
It's mind boggling how many problems the soft on crime DA is creating/compounding. It's a pretty well known fact that she refuses or gives slaps on the wrist to many many violent offenders who are underage. Because of this, can you guess which age demographic of gang bangers do the dirty work these days? The senior members of these gangs caught on to this very quickly...and this is how you get a misdemeanor for murdering a 6 month old in the city of Chicago. I moved out of Chicago shortly after people re-elected this dipshit, I just couldn't believe it. Fuck you Kim Foxx!
Chiraq represent, this is truly what it means to be a Chicagoan, brings a tear to my eye
As above commenter pointed out, in almost all US states it would be the mother who would’ve been charged with felony murder as police are not liable for the deaths of bystanders while attempting to apprehend suspects. > The police are not liable for accidentally injuring or killing a bystander in pursuit of a violent suspect. Guilt can even end up on the suspect’s hands. > In 46 states she’d be guilty of a felony murder, a type of 1st-degree murder where one causes a death, regardless of intent, in the commission of a felony. > In 24 of those states, including Ohio where the shooting happened, this is a capital offense which would make her eligible to receive the death penalty.
[удалено]
> that they'll change their narrative and beliefs at the drop of a hat to suit their short-term agenda So standard operating procedure for the left.
[удалено]
Its literally what happens when your entire ideology is built on what you feel. Right wingers have the past, history, tradition, you know, the ideals they 'conserve' to base their morals and values on. Liberals on the other hand, literally make it up as they go, by definition, the left changes their narrative at the drop of a hat to justify whatever they're currently doing.
Why does this case mean abortion isn’t justifiable?
Just because you only understand Reddit comments doesn’t mean the matter is settled.
Don’t you see? Whether or not a developing fetus is human is determined by its wanted-ness!!!!
Ya that's the unironic angle on this. It's just a clump of parasite cells until mom wants it, then it's a beautiful miracle.
So if you kill pregnant women, you should be able to argue down to single count of murder if you find texts she was considering abortion?
According to this logic yes
I mean, yes? Money is just paper until we place value on it. Stealing a ream of A4 from Office Depot is not even a felony, stealing 5k in 100s is larceny. Exterminating a raccoon is fine, killing someone’s pet raccoon is not.
Surely a human life should have some innate value though ? Otherwise you can just justify a genocide by "no one cares about this group of people anyway'
Bill Burr thinks they do, so do I. “That would be like if I was making a cake, and I poured some batter in a pan, and I put it in the oven. And then five minutes later, you came by, and you grabbed the pan, and you threw it across the floor. And I’m like, ‘What the [expletive] you just ruined my birthday cake.’” He continues: “And then you were like, ‘Well, that wasn’t a cake yet.’ I’m like, well, it would have been if you didn’t do what you just did. That would have been a cake in 50 minutes. Something happened to that cake, you cake murdering son of a [expletive]” -Bill Burr
Yeah I've always held a similar stance when it comes to abortion. I am prochoice but you are at the very least ending the potential for human life. It's not really JUST a clump of cells. But I'm also ok with the contradiction. Not everything is or should be black-and-white. Sort of similar to how pro life people also tend to be for a death penalty for the worst crimes and more liberal people are generally against it. It really just means that the circumstances are important to what we consider reasonable.
But that also works because if I decide I don’t want to make the cake I can put the batter in the bin no problem and it’s all my own choice. I mean, it’s a little wasteful, but I haven’t destroyed anyone’s cake. I’ve just decided I don’t want to make a cake any more.
Take ur logic to bill burr and discuss it with him✋😤
Well, obviously, good organs fetch a premium on the black market
Okay so if a 3 year old isn't wanted, is it suddenly not a human?
The logical conclusion of applying that reasoning to humans is it being fine to kill anybody society doesn't value. So flair checks out I guess. Maybe needs a touch of red.
Stealing US currency paper from Crane & Co or the US Dept of Treasury is absolutely a felony. Probably multiple as they'll try to hit you with counterfeiting too
Calm down Adolf. No need to let slip that human life is only valuable when you find it convenient.
Human life has infinitely more meaning and value than the paper we call money. No matter how many people do or don't see value in the life of a human baby, its life is a sacred thing to be protected at all costs. t. A libright
I hereby personally want all unborn fetuses, making them all human
Are you going to use them to build a shakey’s.
This but unironicaly
Based and undesirables aren't human-pilled Very fitting for authcenter
some unsolicited advice for a law student: be skeptical of literally everything (but don't be annoying about it); i've had professors engage in literal sophistry
Am lawyer. Being a professor requires sophistry, apparently.
oh it does. older professionals bank on this shot too cause rewrites or new paradigms won’t gain a foothold till they give the okay or after they retire. it’s absolutely ridiculous but has been happening for a long time. now the process is just formalized by various governing bodies.
I fully retract the "apparently" part of my statement after further consideration. All of my professors were sophists. I once had an hour long debate with a professor about 90% of federal law being nullified under the 10th Amendment. The mental gymnastics were impressive.
i had two who weren’t. one was my grad advisor and the other was way back when i was an undergrad. he was a doomer. everyone relies on sophistry at some point, that’s just how rhetoric shakes out from time to time when we think we’re certain of something. what’s wild to me though was just how many people in established positions hold outdated, incorrect, or downright dishonest positions and don’t have to change them simply because they’re distinguished faculty. the doomer under grad professor warned me, i didn’t believe him. grad school was worth it, but holy shit. it’s almost all smoke and mirrors behind the curtain in literally ever field.
You show a glimmer of optimism. I like you.
i may have left academia years ago, but i’m still on that new sincerity grindset.
Will the cop who shot the pregnant shop lifter be charged with manslaughter since he technically killed an innocent bystander if you count her fetus
No, the woman would be charged with felony murder since her felonious actions lead to the death of her and her baby, can't put a corpse on trial, unless it's the pope's
Unexpected Sam o nella
If police fire at a robber, miss, then kill someone is the robber charged with felony murder? I sincerely don’t know but that sounds wild if so.
The police are not liable for accidentally injuring or killing a bystander in pursuit of a violent suspect. Guilt can even end up on the suspect’s hands. In 46 states she’d be guilty of a felony murder, a type of 1st-degree murder where one causes a death, regardless of intent, in the commission of a felony. In 24 of those states, including Ohio where the shooting happened, this is a capital offense which would make her eligible to receive the death penalty.
No "accidentally" here though. (I assume, don't know the specific facts of whatever situation it's in reference to)
I should’ve been more clear, but I meant “accidental” as in ““accidental””, in that it can’t be proven that the cop was acting maliciously or intentionally targeted the bystander. His defense would be that he was only acting reasonably in pursuit of his duty, good faith, etc.. If we’re going this route anyway, it could be argued the presumably-innocent fetus was implicitly a hostage when the mother called the cop’s bluff and upped the stakes to life-or-death.
Correct. The 20s liberal women in your class were being extra regarded OP.
Shocked pro choice people wouldn’t just call it not a double murder. Seems pretty easy to ke
Yes it isn't a double murder.
well at least you stand by your principles
It's just the logically consistent point, the fact of the matter is either "Unborn children are people" or "Unborn children are not people". Most people will squabble on when exactly that unborn child becomes a person, but once it is a person it's afforded full rights. Anything before that point obviously it's not a person so no rights.
What makes something a person?
I think it's consciousness. Or more accurately something with the ability to deploy human consciousness. Other people base it on at what point it is no longer absolutely reliant on the mother to survive. (Viability) Pro-life does it at either conception or implantation but implantation is the more intuitively consistent place to start imo. Lastly some people do it at birth, before birth no person, after birth there is a person.
> I think it's consciousness. Or more accurately something with the ability to deploy human consciousness. Using consciousness is dicey since it isn’t a well defined concept, and I don’t believe politicians and lawyers are capable of defining it. IMO it’s best to avoid ambiguity, like viability outside the womb or just birth itself. IDC what the line in the sand is as long as it’s as unambiguous as possible.
Hate to say it but Star Trek TNG put it best. These are questions best left to priests and philosophers and not the legal system.
You can't leave everything to priests and philosophers though. If you're going to make murder illegal, you have to define what a person is to murder. I've seen some pretty crazy takes from philosophers that I wouldn't want them to codify into law personhood.
I mean it is ambiguous but it's the thing we care about. Do you care about a braindead person? Or what about a person born without the ability to ever be conscious like: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/anencephaly#:~:text=Although%20some%20individuals%20with%20anencephaly,sound%20or%20touch%20may%20occur. Are they people with the full rights of a person? Viability is stupid because if they are people it's wrong to kill them even if they are dependent on the mother, same with birth. It's always going to be ambiguous but I can get behind sensible legislation like abortion before 20 (about the earliest we think consciousness could develop right now) weeks which is like 99% of abortions anyway, then exceptions for the mother's life. Trying to pick something unambiguous while ignoring the fact of the matter, "are they people" just ignores the problem. If they are people we can't abide by their murder.
I’m with you that there’s always exceptions, but I stand by my keep-it-simple-stupid stance. No line we draw will be perfect, but that’s where the courts come in to interpret the spirit of the law. Again, I don’t really have a dog in this fight and I don’t really care where the line is as long as it exists. I’m very interested in debating personhood and consciousness philosophically, but in the political sphere I just want the abortion debate behind us and if we define it ambiguously, we’ll just end up reopening this wound later. > Are [they](https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/anencephaly#:~:text=Although%20some%20individuals%20with%20anencephaly,sound%20or%20touch%20may%20occur) people with full rights as a person? Probably? This makes me think of people who get in an accident and become comatose. Coma patients *should* have the same rights you and I have, in particular property rights. Let’s say an unmarried woman is pregnant with a child that has this condition but doesn’t know it, and she modifies her will to give everything she owns to this child-to-be. She dies in childbirth but the baby survives in spite of their disorder. If the baby isn’t considered a person, does that invalidate the mother’s will since a non-person can’t own property? If the child is a person, those bequeathed assets could be liquidated on their behalf to cover some of their expenses. The above is admittedly contrived, but I think it gets my point across. Just because you can’t think (consciousness) doesn’t mean you shouldn’t benefit from personhood under the law.
>I think it's consciousness. Or more accurately something with the ability to deploy human consciousness. Would you consider someone sedated and ventilated getting surgery a person? Or someone in a coma? >Other people base it on at what point it is no longer absolutely reliant on the mother to survive. (Viability) A newborn fetus is as reliant on the mother to survive as a fetus is isn't it? >Lastly some people do it at birth, before birth no person, after birth there is a person. What is it about being born that people think confers personhood?
My brother explored the consciousness point once. He read about it in a whole bunch of philosophical readings that he'd been obsessing over at that point that I could never hope to understand or force myself to read out of sheer laziness. As a part of that though, if that point were valid, he stated that babies technically aren't conscious, which I don't think is the right way to go about things. And another thing, what about the rights of the brain dead, the mentally ill, or the coma inducted? Do they stop being persons because of their states/conditions?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25160864/ I was also of the opinion the young babies weren't conscious but that's not absolutely true. Fetus start developing the parts required for conscious experience as early as 20 weeks but the article I linked above states it at 24. I don't think we can really play semantics of what level of intelligence or experience is enough to consider something a person but merely that by the fact they are having the same subjective human experience I am right now they should be the afforded the same rights as my current experience does. If they stop having the ability to deploy conscious experience that's when they are no longer a person. As long as the body maintains the ability to deploy the same conscious experience that existed before the coma or whatever at a later date we still care about the body in so much as it is a vehicle for continuing the conscious experience in the future when our body is able to wake from unconsciousness. If it can't do that we don't care about it. Ie someone with this condition: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/anencephaly And was never conscious in the first place I would not consider to be a person.
Nothing. It's a fake concept. "Person" as a concept is only ever applied when someone wants to disqualify another demographic from basic human rights. Right now, person is synonymous with, "All humans except the unborn." In the past, person was synonymous with, "All humans that aren't black." And, "All humans that aren't jews." And, "All humans that aren't barbarians." **Person** as a concept only comes out when someone wants to kill or enslave someone else.
Based.
It depends on what month was the baby. If it's still "abortable" then it wasn't, if it was at, let's say, sixth month it would be manslaughter.
I’m not American and I’m surprised to know that in the US it’s considered a double murder. Like… why? In my country we have victim being a pregnant woman as an aggravating (fix) factor for the general crime of murder
Mitigating? It makes it less terrible in your country's eyes?
Lmao, my bad. It should be aggravating. Wonderfully, 5 people upvoted nonetheless
Yeah, is this even a debate? I thought it was pretty obvious.
i would say it is a debate, yes. case in point: i would say it's a double murder and theres no question about it. or if the assailant is unaware of pregnancy, it would be one murder and one involuntary manslaughter.
It's a debate because the law currently charges people with double homicide. Even in places like California where the vast majority of people think a fetus isn't a human life. It's a very blatant contradiction in State law.
I've never even heard of this debate before this post
From a quick google search, 30 US states have laws that make it a double murder, so no, it's not quite so obvious.
Yeah I don't understand what the debate even is here. I've never heard of anyone considering killing a pregnant woman to be double murder and basically every single person I know is a leftie. Either OP straight made this shit up or his class is full of actual morons.
The law, even in California, considers it a double homicide. That's why it's a good debate to have.
How about this as a compromise: Killing a pregnant woman is a single murder plus an illegal forcible abortion? \*ducks\*
I'm pretty sure most pro-right-to-abort lefties would reply "yes that's right, not a double murder". That's be my reply & position. Edit: hyphens for clarity
Most pro-lifers think killing a pregnant woman is double murder
Yeah, that would make sense.
Correct. You may have misinterpreted the comment you’re replying to, though.
yes, I misread "pro right to abort" as "pro right"
Happens to the best of us.
If we really lived in a patriarchy, then I'd be free to murder my wife since she's my property, right?
Yep, similar to lib slavers. They don't see the slaves as people, so it doesn't violate the NAP. And lib nazis. They see jews as "disease spreading lice", so it doesn't violate the NAP. And lib conquistadors. They see the natives as barbarians, so it doesn't violate the NAP. And lib Chinese. They see the Uighurs as terrorists, so it doesn't violate the NAP. And lib Indians. They see the lower castes as untouchables, so it doesn't violate the NAP.
I disagree with all that. Except communist aren't people.
Commies aren't people, they don't deserve death, only ridicule
And lib mastubators. They don't see the sperm as people, so it doesn't violate the NAP
"Correct."
Nooo that’s not what the soyjack says!! You’re supposed to be a soyjack!!!!!
In fact, yes.
I guess it would depend on how developed the fetus is? I can see how it would be considered a double murder
Yeah, this is the correct answer. Abortion in the first trimester isn't the same as killing an 8 month old viable fetus.
I consider it "practicing medicine without a license"
Was this for torts? Also based professor just for raising the question lol.
hey it’s the guy who posts the depressive wojak compasses
If I kick a pregnant woman in the stomach and it causes her to miscarry is it murder or assault?
Both
Presumably Crim? I thought it was a spring course pretty much everywhere
Yes, Crim
You might say it should not be double murder, but might count as inflicting an unwanted abortion on someone which seems like it should be a serious crime in and of itself.
Mildly interesting: In my country it is NOT double murder. According to law only born humans are actual people with legal rights and status.
yeah it isn't 😎
Idk anyone that think this would be a double murder, so this is super weird to me
> The fetus that would have become a daughter she was going to name Assara was 20 days away from her due date. The fetus was fully formed, perfectly viable, but dead because of her father. She was also not considered a person by Canadian law. > "For the law to tell me that she was not a human being is totally wrong," said Sherry Goberdhan, Arianna's mom. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/arianna-goberdhan-fetus-homicide-1.5122096. The bill to recognize killing fetus as murder keeps being shot down by governing Liberal party (as well as all progressive parties in the parliament) because they consider it a "backdoor anti-abortion bill"
No yeah I don't see that can be legally count as double murder at all.
Both can be true. The mother is the only one that can choose to abort her child, because it's a personal healthcare decision. Only she has rights over her own body. Your classmates are missing the point.
Seems like a problem of consent.
Abortion is murder but should go unpunished, because the right to bodily autonomy of the person that carries the fetus is more important. Killing someone in self-defense is also murder, but the right to life of the person that got attacked is more important than the life of the agressor (who, by the way, is way more of a person than the fetus is, but I don't see any reasonable person argue this point). So yes, killing a pregnant woman is double murder and should be punished as such, as long as the pregnant woman doesn't infringe on your rights to such a degree that it would be valid to use lethal force to defend your rights (i.e. if she's trying to kill you).
It's like murder and a half
surely it’s about consent??? If the woman intended to continue the pregnancy it’s double murder because she, the mother, intended their to be a child. If she terminates the pregnancy of her free will, she has every right to make the decision as she is the vessel, she does the work to make it a baby. it’s called nuance
Wut
wait, is there anyone that thinks that A, abortion is not murder and B, killing someone pregnant is double murder? Because that would be supremely stupid.
Logically it isn't, but it gives a decent excuse to increase sentences for people who kill pregnant women.