Preborn twins die in bank robbery
Reported the Associated Press today:
Indianapolis – A pregnant teller shot in a bank robbery has lost the twins she was carrying, and police continued to search for the gunman Friday.
Katherin Shuffield, who was five months pregnant [and 30 years old], was critically wounded when a masked gunman shot her in the abdomen Tuesday morning at a Huntington Bank branch.
What happened to the babies? USA Today…
Her family and authorities had said the bullets missed the five-month-old fetuses, but complications set in and doctors decided to deliver them prematurely late last night. One was born dead and the other died shortly after birth
And WISHTV.com:
Although the bullet missed the twins, surgeons had to remove a section of Shuffield’s intestine and her appendix. Shuffield first lost one of her babies then the other.
Will the gunman be charged with murder? No, according to USA Today:
The gunman, who still has not been found, could now be charged with felony feticide or other crimes. Had Shuffield been at least seven months pregnant, the gunman could have been charged with manslaughter.
Indiana defines feticide as a “person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide, a Class C felony.”
Not so fast. I don’t know where USA Today is getting its legal information from, but that’s not how I read IN law. I don’t know the exact age of the babies, but 23 weeks is considered the line of viability, somewhere in the 5th month. If doctors decided to deliver the babies, they thought the babies stood a better chance of living outside their mother than inside. They must have thought them potentially viable. Here is IN law from the National Conference of State Legislatures (click to enlarge):
That said, I expect “viability” will get in the way of this case. State laws should strike this biased word from preborn homicide laws. Whether a baby is or isn’t viable is inconsequential. If someone murders a nonviable born person, say someone with terminally ill cancer, it is still called murder.
[HT: proofreader Angela, reader Janet; bank photo courtesy of the AP; Shuffield photo courtesy of USA Today]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Heartbreaking.
I don’t understand how one can ” intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than … to remove a dead fetus”
Doesn’t terminate mean the fetus is alive, and removing a dead fetus wouldn’t have anything to do with termination?
According to what is being reported around here The USA Today article is right. I’m going to check into it futher because I thought Indiana’s laws were set at viability. My son was born just at 7 months and that would be 7 weeks after viability (24 weeks):
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/15992668/detail.html
“Prosecutors could consider additional charges, such as feticide, against the gunman because the fetuses have died, said Marion County chief trial prosecutor David Wyser. In order for manslaughter charges to be filed in Indiana, Shuffield would have had to have been at least seven months pregnant, he said.”
These were babies that the parents wanted and chose to keep, but no one gives a crap about that. Goodness knows we wouldn’t want women who want their babies dead to feel as if the law was against them.
As long as abortion is legal is all anyone cares about anymore – no one cares about the women who will never see justice because the so-called feminists don’t want any law which would make them feel bad.
They should be charged with murder. Low life scum.
The mother and only the mother should decide wether or not to continue a pregnancy.
“Doesn’t terminate mean the fetus is alive, and removing a dead fetus wouldn’t have anything to do with termination?”
Milehimama, I think when they say “terminate”, it means removal of the baby, whether he/she is dead or alive. It’s all overly complicated mumbo-jumbo which tries to protect abortion rights.
…
USA Today is like the rest of the MSM->liberal bias.
Jess,
so it’s OK for the mother to murder but not the bank robber?
Jasper, you know I think that way because it’s the mothers body. Come on.
You know how my evil mind ticks by now : P
“Doesn’t terminate mean the fetus is alive, and removing a dead fetus wouldn’t have anything to do with termination?”
Milehimama, I think when they say “terminate”, it means removal of the baby, whether he/she is dead or alive. It’s all overly complicated mumbo-jumbo which tries to protect abortion rights.
…
USA Today is like the rest of the MSM->liberal bias.
Posted by: jasper at April 25, 2008 8:18 PM
So in Indiana, a” termination of pregnancy” can result in a live birth?
Which has a higher penalty attached to it, feticide or aggravated battery?
Wow, Jasper, talk about mumbo-jumbo. These laws are a joke. Yikes!
A fetus is a human, a baby is a human, Janet is a human. If said humans are not inside of your body, then it should be murder to kill them.
“You know how my evil mind ticks by now : P”
I don’t think your evil Jess, I bet you have a big heart. You see how your statements above are contradictory, don’t you?
Not really jasper. I mean, it was the mothers egg implanted into the mothers uterus, it should be up to the mother wether or not it stays there. But I’m just a kid so I’m going to take your word for it.
Jess –
So it is okay to terminate the life of an unborn child just because of it’s location?
Doesn’t that mean that the unborn child is a victim of the Natural Order of Life?
It’s not the unborn child’s fault that S/he is in that location. So why punish him/her?
Hi Jess,
Sticking with the topic on hand…this mommy did not choose to terminate her pregnancy…her twin babies were murdered.
Jess –
So it is okay to terminate the life of an unborn child just because of it’s location?
Doesn’t that mean that the unborn child is a victim of the Natural Order of Life?
It’s not the unborn child’s fault that S/he is in that location. So why punish him/her?
Posted by: valerie at April 25, 2008 9:05 PM
…………………………………………
Of course it is the woman’s ‘fault’ and she is deserving of ‘punishment’. Unless of course the pregnancy is wanted. Then the pregnancy is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the woman beyond a few months of minor inconvenience.
“So it is okay to terminate the life of an unborn child just because of it’s location?”
I guess that’s about it.
Some stupid pro-life kid once asked about location, “If you held a baby under water would you have the right to kill it!?” No, if you held a baby under water it would die anyways. They might be babies but yeah they are humans and humans need air. kthx
Wonder why Doug hasn’t commented on this post. After all these were apparently non-sentient beings that died, therefore there was no murder and therefore should be no charges.
Hmmmmm….??
Hi Jess,
Sticking with the topic on hand…this mommy did not choose to terminate her pregnancy…her twin babies were murdered.
Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 9:09 PM
………………………………………………
I don’t think that causing death indirectly, legally constitutes a murder charge.
This poor woman must be traumatized. Her life has been turned upside down. My concern is for the woman and her recovery.
I know Carla, see my 8:13 post.
This poor woman is also grieving the death of her precious twins.
I know Carla, I couldn’t even begin to imagine the horror she is going through. I can’t think of a punishment sever enough for the gunman.
I think I would have to be restrained from killing him with my bare hands. Someone would have to restrain my hubby too.
Sally:9:20: I don’t think that causing death indirectly, legally constitutes a murder charge.
This poor woman must be traumatized. Her life has been turned upside down. My concern is for the woman and her recovery.
This gunman pointed the gun at her abdomen and shot at her and ran. This was an intentional attempt to harm her fetus(es)/babies. That’s double murder.
As a Christian and God-fearing man, I cannot tell you how this stirs the absolute outrage in my heart. Where’s the outrage by the Senators, Governor and President on this?
There is a Bible verse that talks about this stuff and when I find it I will post it.
If anyone disses that verse I will call for Jill to ban them from this site, otherwise, I will leave this site.
I have absolutely had it up to my gills with our governemnt and it’s time to take a stand.
Sally –
“My concern is for the woman and her recovery. ”
According to the husband she is in Critical Condition at Methodist Hospital – which is an excellent trauma hospital around here.
“Of course it is the woman’s ‘fault’ and she is deserving of ‘punishment’. Unless of course the pregnancy is wanted. Then the pregnancy is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the woman beyond a few months of minor inconvenience. ”
With the exception of rape and incest – how is it NOT the woman’s fault? She laid down and spread her legs knowing that is how one gets pregnant. All the barriers in the world are not 100% and every contraception pill and device says that. With adoption being legal in America, I’m not sure what you mean by “punishment”. Is it the pregnancy itself that is punishment or the thought of raising a child? Is a person “punished” because they got AIDS when they didn’t know their partner had it? Is a person “punished” when they develop genital warts because their outerplay involved some genital rubbing but not penitration? Or is this just consequences of their actions? It has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with consequences.
Most people admit that the fetus is a human being. How is terminating a human being not murder? and if the answer is because the fetus is inside the womans body, then you have just made the human fetus a victim of the Natural Order of Life. In order to have a victim, a crime had to be committed.
If this happened to my wife or daughter and the authrorities failed to do justice, I would have a moral obligation to take care of the matter myself.
Jasper said: “so it’s OK for the mother to murder but not the bank robber?”
C’mon, Jasper. It’s only murder if the mother says it’s murder. The mother takes on the role of God and decides who lives and who dies. So it stands to reason that she should also decide if the bank robber is prosecuted for murder or for damaging some pieces of tissue in her body.
Whoever committed this vile act, is guity of shedding innocent blood and his days are numbered.
Proverbs 17:15
Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent
Wait a minute HisMan, this story is really upsetting to everyone on this site. Don’t let your anger get the better of you though. If you were to do something crazy and ended up in jail how would it effect your family then? Remember WWJD.
I’ll try and take my own advice also, nothing upsets me more then when someone invades an innocent person’s personal space.
Jess –
“nothing upsets me more then when someone invades an innocent person’s personal space.”
You’re kidding me right?
Kinda like an unborn human baby in a mother’s womb being an innocent’s personal space.
If nothing upsets you more, then abortion should outrage you.
Don’t worry, HisMan. He will repent or he’ll get what’s coming to him.
“Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.””
-Romans 12:19
“The one who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
Then he said, “Write these words down, for they are trustworthy and true.”
He said to me, “They are accomplished. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.
But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
-Revelation 21:5-8
Janet:
Oor government is peverted, it is corrupted and it has lost its way.
Why? Because we have allowed it.
We will be held accountable to God if we sit by and do nothing.
The killing of this mother’s children and injuring her is the most heinous type of evil. If I ma angry at this can you imagine how God feels? He restrains his wrath because of His love even for this slime bag murderer. I am not God, however, and I would off this guy in a heart beat.
You can’t imagine how pissed off I am.
What just delete that last post I was going to add something but I don’t want to get into a whole discussion now.
John L:9:57: Excellent point John. The mother who lost her babies should have a say in what charges are brought against the killers, and it should be taken seriously by the authorities.
John:
Yes, these words are true, however, my heartache, my anger, my outrage, that our goverment has become so twisted and perverse so as to even debate that this guy is not a murderer is beyond the pale.
We have lost our way and it is mostly the church that is at fault.
I don’t think we should blame the church, there is a separation between church and state.
HisMan:10:13:
Let’s pray that citizens and leaders from all over the world will see this story and realize how far this world has come in devaluing human life. It’s time for a change.
Jess 10:25:
Look how well that is working out.
@Janet: And look at countries where government is fused with religion, stuff isn’t much better. :-/
Rae:10:30: Point taken…. everything in moderation..But there’s a big difference between killing over it and just instructing it (religion).
We can’t even teach the kids the Ten Commandments anymore, as in “Thou shalt not kill”. That’s just going too far…
That said, I expect “viability” will get in the way of this case. State laws should strike this biased word from preborn homicide laws. Whether a baby is or isn’t viable is inconsequential. If someone murders a nonviable born person, say someone with terminally ill cancer, it is still called murder.
…………………………………………………
A nonviable born person is a dead person. Murdering the dead is a very strange concept.
I am going to guess that the violent criminals that killed these two twins for no reason are black. Why do I guess this? Because I am a gambler and statistics say I am right more than half the time. Where is Jesse??? Where is Al Sharpton?? Do they not care about unborn lives?? NO, because that does not give them news time. They do nto care. Unless the babies were black and killed by a white policeman.
How much more complicated can we make this? Let’s try to define viability.
Abortion Related Legal Terms
(from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed., 1990)
Unborn child. The individual human life in existence and developing prior to birth.
A child not yet born at the happening of an event. A child not yet born at the time of an injury to his mother which causes the child to suffer an injury may recover in most jurisdictions after birth if the child were viable in his mother’s womb at the time of the defendant’s wrongdoing. In the majority of states, injuries sustained by a viable, unborn child which was the cause of the child’s death may form the basis of a wrongful death action brought by the estate of the stillborn child. Amadio v. Levin, 509 Pa. 199, 501 A.2d 1085, 1087.
See also Child; Viable child; Wrongful death statutes.
Viability. Capability of living. A term used to denote the power a new-born child possesses of continuing its independent existence. That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefinitely outside the womb by natural or artificial life-supportive systems. The constitutionality of this statutory definition (V.A.M.S. (Mo.),
Well Janet, since we don’t have religious uniformity in this country (thank goddess) it would be difficult to fuse government with religion. And if we teach Christianity in schools we should teach about other religions too.
Janet:
Prayer without action is ineffective.
Faith without works is dead.
If one prays in faith without taking action on what’s been prayed for especiaily when the Lord has provided the time, talent and treasure, He laughs at the calamity that results when our prayers go unanswered. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t depend on God, I’m saying that part of praying requires action.
We must pray and then act on our convictions. The Gospel is clear on this.
The church has gone namby-pamby and think all they have to do is pray and they’ve done all they’re required to do. Their words are meaningless and just lip-service. If prayer were just enough, then the King of Prayer would not have to have been crucified.
That prayer does not require corresponding action is a lie from the pit of hell.
To end abortion and change all these perverted laws, we must run for office, vote out bad politicians, change the laws, and hold these moral midgets accountable.
The time to act is NOW.
“Rae:10:30: Point taken…. everything in moderation..But there’s a big difference between killing over it and just instructing it (religion).
We can’t even teach the kids the Ten Commandments anymore, as in “Thou shalt not kill”. That’s just going too far…”
Agreed.
I still maintain that things like the 10 Commandments is meant to be taught in the home, it is the parent’s responsibility to teach their child morality, not the school or society. Again- my opinion.
Hisman,
I agree, we need actions, not just words!!!!! You are preaching to the choir!
Rae:
The 10 Commandments were given to Moses not to parents.
Moses represented authority.
It is a soceital repsonsibility (which includes parents) to teach God’s ways as revealed in His Word.
Also, and without getting into the theology of it, teaching the commandments is only one part of it. Teaching the commandments and that we cannot obey them without Christ is what must be done.
Someday, perhaps when things get so bad, we will all wake up and say, hey let’s try teaching our kids moral values in school as well. To be educated without morals is to be ignorant. It’s like building a car without having the fuel to power it.
This is why my children will NEVER attend a public school. What we teach them at home is reinforced where they spend most of their formative, and early lives.
Well whose morals HisMan? I mean, what if one of the children is Shintoist? How would the child feel if we were to say, “ok well this Christian religion is the only right one”?
The Shinto religion has been around longer then Christianity.
@HisMan: Good for your kids. I went to public school my entire life (even college), my parents went to public school, and my kids will also suffer through the boredom that is public school. My parents turned out pretty good, I turned out pretty good, and my future chitlins will also turn out well.
It is NOT a teacher’s responsibility to teach morality. A teacher’s responsibility is to prepare kids for the work world and college. That’s it. It is the church’s and parent’s responsibility to teach their kids to be good, moral, citizens.
Yes, the teachers do reinforce those teachings in school by disciplining unruly students, but in the end, it is the PARENT’S responsibility to make sure their children are respectful, and behave in a moral manner.
Sally –
“My concern is for the woman and her recovery. ”
According to the husband she is in Critical Condition at Methodist Hospital – which is an excellent trauma hospital around here.
“Of course it is the woman’s ‘fault’ and she is deserving of ‘punishment’. Unless of course the pregnancy is wanted. Then the pregnancy is a gift from God and has nothing to do with the woman beyond a few months of minor inconvenience. ”
With the exception of rape and incest – how is it NOT the woman’s fault? She laid down and spread her legs knowing that is how one gets pregnant. All the barriers in the world are not 100% and every contraception pill and device says that. With adoption being legal in America, I’m not sure what you mean by “punishment”. Is it the pregnancy itself that is punishment or the thought of raising a child? Is a person “punished” because they got AIDS when they didn’t know their partner had it? Is a person “punished” when they develop genital warts because their outerplay involved some genital rubbing but not penitration? Or is this just consequences of their actions? It has nothing to do with punishment and everything to do with consequences.
Most people admit that the fetus is a human being. How is terminating a human being not murder? and if the answer is because the fetus is inside the womans body, then you have just made the human fetus a victim of the Natural Order of Life. In order to have a victim, a crime had to be committed.
Posted by: valerie at April 25, 2008 9:48 PM
…………………………………………………
That you need to subscribe ‘fault’ to the process of gestation is what puzzles me. What is the incessant need to assign blame over a biological occurrence?
Clearly most people would not wish to contract a disease in any manner. Just as some women would not wish to remain pregnant if that should happen.
Risking a condition with a behavior does not justify societal insistence upon physical consequence. Pregnancy does have physical consequence up to and including death. To demand such possible physical consequence is a violation of human rights. Unless you are compelling one single individual to preserve their own life. In some instances.
You cannot compel a person to sacrifice their well being to save another person much less to create another life.
Jasper said: “so it’s OK for the mother to murder but not the bank robber?”
C’mon, Jasper. It’s only murder if the mother says it’s murder. The mother takes on the role of God and decides who lives and who dies. So it stands to reason that she should also decide if the bank robber is prosecuted for murder or for damaging some pieces of tissue in her body.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 9:57 PM
………………………………………….
And if she should decide to turn the other cheek and forgive him?
If someone murders a nonviable born person, say someone with terminally ill cancer, it is still called murder.
That’s because a born person with terminal cancer is not “nonviable.” If they are born, and they have been living outside their mother’s bodies for some time, they are obviously viable.
Being a former nurse, you ought to know that, so I’m not sure why you’re playing dumb.
Rae:11:16: @HisMan: Good for your kids. I went to public school my entire life (even college), my parents went to public school, and my kids will also suffer through the boredom that is public school. My parents turned out pretty good, I turned out pretty good, and my future chitlins will also turn out well.
It is NOT a teacher’s responsibility to teach morality. A teacher’s responsibility is to prepare kids for the work world and college. That’s it. It is the church’s and parent’s responsibility to teach their kids to be good, moral, citizens.
Yes, the teachers do reinforce those teachings in school by disciplining unruly students, but in the end, it is the PARENT’S responsibility to make sure their children are respectful, and behave in a moral manner.
I don’t doubt you turned out pretty good, but why settle for “pretty good”. In the Catholic church, we are trying to raise children to be saints (well, it doesn’t always happen, but it’s a goal to strive for!:)
Discipline means “teaching”. Discipline teaches kids how to act in a civilized way, how to contribute to society in a productive way, and to stay out of trouble. Do you see the connection? You can’t separate morals from classroom teaching. Consider “The Book of Virtues” written by Bennett. It’s a wonderful compilation of stories for children/adults that teaches morals and virtues. It is a joke that, there are probably people who would suggesting banning this book in a classroom because there might be *gasp* a few bible stories in it. The problem with many schools is that all they are concerned about is teaching kids how to take tests so they can get into a good college, and get a good job. Schools need to teach children how to think as well. To do that you have to expose them to a wide range of disciplines. (There is a lot to be learned from studying Christianity, for example, even if you don’t “believe” in it.)