This seems cut-and-dry. There is no question the Born Alive Infant Protection Act applies here. Passed in 2001, it states any human born alive, no matter the circumstances and no matter the gestational age, is constitutionally protected as a legal person.

And it's a good thing we have BAIPA, because legalized abortion has completely radicalized thinking on personhood. From the Kansas City Star, September 11:

A federal magistrate judge has questioned defense arguments that Lisa Montgomery should not be charged with kidnapping because the child she abducted was not a legal person....

Montgomery is charged with kidnapping resulting in death in the December 2004 killing of Bobbie Jo Stinnett in Skidmore, MO. Prosecutors have accused Montgomery of strangling Stinnett and using a kitchen knife to cut Stinnett's baby from her womb. The baby survived.

In March, defense attorneys argued that if the baby was defined as a fetus under the U.S. Supreme Court's abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, then Stinnett's death could not have been the result of a kidnapping, which requires the victim to be a person.

In a filing Monday, Judge John Maughmer recommended that the trial judge strike defense motions based on the Roe argument.

Chief U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan will rule on Maughmer's recommendations before Montgomery's trial begins in October.

The nonperson, living, now 4-year-old fetus is named Victoria Jo Stinnett and lives with her father Zeb.

Even abortion proponents should see how incredible this defense argument is.

But had this baby been aborted, you might not see that. In fact, you likely wouldn't. You've argued it here. You have defended Barack Obama for arguing against IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act based on that very premise.

And had the baby had not survived her attack you might not see it either.

[HT: moderator jasper; family photo is of Victoria at 4 months]

What an adorable little baby!!

Victoria is one cute baby!

I don't know the deal with IL and the BAIPA and Obama, but I suspect it is not so simple as that.

Was Bobby Jo kidnapped or not? If Montgomery kidnapped her and strangled her,then "kidnapping resulting in death" should apply whether she was pregnant or not, and regardless of what happened with the baby.

Doug

Person-nonperson...
Silliest thing I've ever heard.
The lengths people will go to to get what they want.

So if the woman died it would have still been murder whether it was murder and kidnapping or murder and theft.

Doug,

She didn't kidnap the mother. She killed the mother to kidnap the non-person.

The deal with IL, BAIPA and Obama is that Jill was instrumental is getting the BAIPA established, and Obama voted against it. Jill worked on this because she held a baby that was born alive after a botched abortion. Read her bio...

Oops, sorry, Jill - I also meant to say that yes, regardless of arguments about abortion, once the baby was delivered then personhood is not an issue, and any defense based on the contrary is stupid.

Something doesn't seem right about this to me. Is the prosecution saying that it was the kidnapping of the baby that caused Bobby Jo's death? I don't get it.

Doug

JK,

She is going to be charged with murder no matter what. It's the kidnapping that is in question. Is it possible to kidnap a non-person? You're right, it would then be theft. How pathetic is that? And how much is a non-person worth?

Doug,

Our ongoing war has been moved to the breastfeeding post...

fetus from the latin meaning little child......

this is the dumbest defense I've heard in awhile and if this child is a non-person, then why is scott peterson on death row for killing connor peterson....

Doug,

once the baby was delivered then personhood is not an issue

What if the baby was "delivered" at 13 weeks?
Is personhood an issue then?

jessie, thank you! I often bring up Scott Peterson here. If anyone would have said "We are searching for Laci and her fetus."..I guarantee her mom would have had a conniption fit. That woman loved her daughter and her grandson! She makes no bones about it. What made Conner a human? The fact that he had a name?

She didn't kidnap the mother. She killed the mother to kidnap the non-person.

MK, okay - then the death was already fact before the kidnapping occured. To say, "kidnapping resulting in death" sounds silly to me in this case.

Doug

Heather,

What made Conner a human? The fact that he had a name?

Well, let's see...was it Tuesday or Wednesday? Was it raining or sunny? Was it winter or spring? Because these are just the kind of lame brain arguments we get for when it IS a person and when it IS not...all at the whim of whoever is fighting for their view.

So if it was a sunny Tuesday in Spring it was a person. If it was a rainy Wednesday in winter it was a non-person...or maybe they just roll dice!

"once the baby was delivered then personhood is not an issue"

What if the baby was "delivered" at 13 weeks? Is personhood an issue then?

MK, I sure don't think so. Once it's out it's out.

Punishments for armed robbery can include the death penalty, life in prison, or no less than 10 years in prison without parole. That would be on top of what she would get for killing the mother.

Why Doug?
The purpose of the crime was to obtain the nonperson.

In order to do that Lisa Montgomery had to kill Bobbie Jo Stinnett. The crime was kidnapping. An effect of that kidnapping was the death of Bobbie Jo.

Thus, kidnapping by murder.

CNN) -- Authorities late Friday said a Kansas woman who had a miscarriage earlier this year confessed to strangling a pregnant Missouri woman in her home and then cutting the baby from her womb -- a crime the local sheriff described as the most gruesome he had ever seen.

The purpose of the crime was to obtain the nonperson.

In order to do that Lisa Montgomery had to kill Bobbie Jo Stinnett. The crime was kidnapping. An effect of that kidnapping was the death of Bobbie Jo.

Thus, kidnapping by murder.

Oy Vey, MK. "Kidnapping by murder" isn't what was said. "Kidnapping resulting in death" is what was said, and that does not make sense to me. The kidnapping did not result in the death. The death was already a done deal, and then the kidnapping took place. It wasn't due to the kidnapping that the death happened.

If I want to walk across the street between intersections, and Joe Blow is in the way and I kill him, then make my way across, that wouldn't be "Jaywalking resulting in death," eh?

If Conner Peterson was a non person, then wouldn't Sharon Rocha simply say, "I miss Laci." Why did she say, "I miss Conner?"

It's the emotional attachment. Likewise, step parents can consider their step children to be theirs biologically, but that doesn't mean state and federal laws also consider them so.

Doug,

And if I want a new baby because I miscarried my own, and I killed the mother to get it, that would be kidnapping resulting in death. eh?

The purpose of the crime was to KIDNAP. The result was a dead woman.

Would you be happier if Ms. Montgomery had not strangled Bobbie Jo first and just ripped into her instead?

And quite honestly, it doesn't say anywhere that she was or wasn't dead before the baby was taken. It's possible she was just unconscious. You know, as in a nonperson herself at the time.

"once the baby was delivered then personhood is not an issue"
*
What if the baby was "delivered" at 13 weeks? Is personhood an issue then?
*
MK, I sure don't think so. Once it's out it's out.

But why Doug...I mean, it's no more sentient out than in?

If your argument wasn't so sad, I'd have to laugh!

And you want to know why Bethany thinks you use circular arguments...Good Lord!

What if the baby was "delivered" at 13 weeks? Is personhood an issue then?

MK, I sure don't think so. Once it's out it's out."

Doug, how can a 13 week old fetus be a person??? what does in/out have to do with it?

And you want to know why Bethany thinks you use circular arguments...Good Lord!

No kidding!!

Oh she is just too cute!!!

"once the baby was delivered then personhood is not an issue"

What if the baby was "delivered" at 13 weeks? Is personhood an issue then?

"MK, I sure don't think so. Once it's out it's out."

But why Doug...I mean, it's no more sentient out than in?

Ahem - you asked about the personhood. Society doesn't have "sentient" as the standard. If you mean my own personal opinion, as with the hypothetical you proposed a while back, then it'd be a dead fetus or I guess you could say a dead baby, though so premature that I feel we're stretching the term. But as far as the way things are now, I don't think there are any exceptions to personhood being deemed at birth, even in the case of the 13 weeker. It wouldn't live, so may almost entirely be a moot point.

......

If your argument wasn't so sad, I'd have to laugh! And you want to know why Bethany thinks you use circular arguments...Good Lord!

And once again - Good Grief - are you unable to see that it's two different things?

I gave you my honest opinion about where and how I would draw the line, were it up to me. That is far, far different from how things are now in society, in reality.

If there is sadness here, it's you being unable to distinguish between the hypothetical and the actual.

Doug

MK: And quite honestly, it doesn't say anywhere that she was or wasn't dead before the baby was taken. It's possible she was just unconscious. You know, as in a nonperson herself at the time.

Okay, that's pretty reasonable. It's just the cause/result as stated that bugged me.

If she was dead before the kidnapping, then while it may have been the intent to kidnap that meant she was killed, it wasn't the kidnapping itself that resulted in the death.

Doug

"And you want to know why Bethany thinks you use circular arguments...Good Lord!"

No kidding!!

@ @

A big roll of the eyes to that.

Jasper: Doug, how can a 13 week old fetus be a person??? what does in/out have to do with it?

Jasper, the fetus isn't "out," as by definition it's unborn. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I know, if it would be out of the womb, then it'd be legally a person (though of course it'd die right away, at 13 weeks). Again, correct me if I'm wrong....

Doug

Doug,
this whole thing why a baby is not a person because it's in its mothers womb is insane.

I don't even think that was the rational for personhood in Roe...

this whole thing why a baby is not a person because it's in its mothers womb is insane.

Jasper, I know you feel that way. However, it's at birth that society says "citizen, person, right-to-life, dependent," and so forth.

......

I don't even think that was the rational for personhood in Roe...

The Roe decision said that if personhood was established for the unborn, it would of course change things. I don't think Roe really had a rationale "for personhood," though.

Doug

Doug, it's ridiculous, and here's why.

You say that you believe society decides what happens, and in this case you are in agreement with society when it comes to not giving a fetus personhood, even after viability. At least not "absolute" personhood, whatever that means.

You then tell us that it's about sentience, whether the baby can be aware of his or her surroundings, and that if they are not aware, they are not persons.

Then you contradict yourself and say that personhood isn't an issue if the baby is "out". That the baby is a person at birth, even if it's early as 13 weeks!
Even if that baby is born BEFORE viability.
Don't you think this contradicts your idea that sentience is even an issue?

Then you say, that it isn't your opinion, it's societies. Then you say, it's not the way it is in society, it is just your opinion.

And you wonder why MK and I see it as a circular argument...why can't you see why you are so confusing?

Bethany: Doug, it's ridiculous, and here's why. You say that you believe society decides what happens, and in this case you are in agreement with society when it comes to not giving a fetus personhood, even after viability. At least not "absolute" personhood, whatever that means.

Society DOES define personhood, Bethany, whether a given individual agrees with society's position on it or not.

......

You then tell us that it's about sentience, whether the baby can be aware of his or her surroundings, and that if they are not aware, they are not persons.

NO - I've said that I place positive value on sentience myself, and that it makes a difference to many other people too. But that is not saying what society's position is. There is a difference.

.......

Then you contradict yourself and say that personhood isn't an issue if the baby is "out." That the baby is a person at birth, even if it's early as 13 weeks! Even if that baby is born BEFORE viability. Don't you think this contradicts your idea that sentience is even an issue?

Heck no - society isn't saying that sentience makes a difference, though I do care about it as do many other people. I think that being born means personhood is then present, according to society's current position, and is that not so? That's the way it's been for most every society on earth, for all time.

......

Then you say, that it isn't your opinion, it's societies. Then you say, it's not the way it is in society, it is just your opinion. And you wonder why MK and I see it as a circular argument...why can't you see why you are so confusing?

Good grief, Bethany, it's not me that is "confusing," it's just that you are confused.

Society has its position.

I place positive value on sentience, as well as on other things.

Nothing is "circular" here.

Doug