Either way this guy isn't going to see the light of day for a very long time. Felony evasion, felony posession, reckless endangerment...he'll get a long time in jail.

"thanks to abortion"? huh? what the HECK does this have to do with abortion?

first of all, the DA was stupid to go after murder charges in the first place. I know from my experience with my friend dying as a result of injuries from a car wreck and the subsequent research I did on it, its damn near impossible to get a murder conviction in that type of case. A manslaughter charge is far more likely to lead to a conviction in this type of case, as part of the definition or murder invovles "malice" and "intent" - with a good enough lawyer, those can be called in to question with a car accident. So even if she was deemed a person "from conception" - this guy still would have had a good shot at walking.

second of all, those laws about personhood aren't in place BECAUSE of abortion- abortion was around LONG before those laws were written - they are outdated laws from the years before viability was really understood, and before the medical advances that didn't exist back then to save the lives of babies like this.

based on my argument for the legality of abortion, which is the concept of the mother having the right to consent or not consent to the pregnancy, this was absolutely, without a doubt, murder and/or manslaughter. not only because she was viable, but because her mother had obviously consented to her pregnancy. So I wonder if the DA had gone after manslaughter charges as opposed to murder if they would have had any better luck indicting this SOB.

here's the thing though - from my logic regarding abortion, calling a fetus a person from conception wouldn't really be a big deal in terms of abortion. It would be a HUGE deal in cases like this, and I'd support it. But person or not, if a fetus does not have the consent of the mother to be using her body, she has the right to remove it, even if that means it will die.

I can't be the only one who thinks this way?? That it doesn't matter how old the fetus is, if the mother wanted it there in her body and someone killed it without her permission, they should be charged with a crime!! Uhhhgggg - so awful.

Yes, I was going to say something similar Erin. It's not like they're giving him a medal.

Gosh, how that poor mother must feel, being told her dead baby was never a person. I feel sick....

Hal and Erin

I understand what you're both saying, and it does make sense. But when its someone you cared about, knowing the person who took them away from you is not being charged for THAT crime can be a really hard pill to swallow.

Two of the 4 young men who killed my friend were only charged with "robbery and aggravated assault" even though their actions led to my friend being DEAD.

All these legal technicalities, though I know there IS a reason for them and the person may still go to jail, mean nothing to the loved ones of victims - when its pretty damn clear if it wasn't for this person and their actions, the loved one would still be alive and well.

Ooops that was me!

-Amanda

"Gosh, how that poor mother must feel, being told her dead baby was never a person. I feel sick...."

Her dead baby was a person after it was born, but not at the time of the crime.

People are starting to get with it. California had the Scott Peterson case. Canton, Ohio had the Bobby Cutts Jr. case. There is a case still pending in Ohio where a pregnant woman was taszered by police. They are in big trouble for that one!

rosie, WHAT? I must have missed that part. Gotta go reread.

*oops* meant tazered.*

Her baby was a person at the time of the crime.

Amanda, I didn't mean to sound unsympathetic. The legal techicalities are there for a reason, to protect us all. Sometimes it doesn't seem like "justice" is done, but even a harsh prison term doesn't bring back our loved ones.

Her baby was a person at the time of the crime.
Posted by: Carla at March 27, 2008 12:55 PM

Not if the law defines person as someone already born.

Ok Hal,
After carrying 4 cherubs to term I would say in my personal Mommying opinion that all of them were human persons when I was 8 1/2 months along. :)

The law in CO says different. Agreed.

What a tragic story. How sad that this young mother lost her baby. She must be saddened too that not all of us see Lileigh as a baby. Sad, sad, sad.

Body Found in Ohio; Missing Woman's Boyfriend Charged With Murder
Saturday, June 23, 2007

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
AP

Bobby Cutts Jr.
Bobby Cutts Jr.
CANTON, Ohio — Authorities on Saturday arrested the boyfriend of a missing nine-month pregnant woman on murder charges and said they recovered a body believed to be hers.

Jessie Davis has been missing for a week from her home, where her 2-year-old son was found alone, his diaper dirty, bedroom furniture toppled and bleach spilled on the floor.

The Stark County Sheriff's Department said a body was recovered in neighboring Summit County at 3:30 p.m. Saturday. The sheriff's office did not give a location but said they believed it to be Davis.

Television news footage taken from helicopters above Cuyahoga Valley National Park showed authorities carrying a body bag on a stretcher and loading it into a white van.

The aerial views also showed investigators riding off-road vehicles to reach an area of the park that is heavily covered with trees and brush.

Roger Riggins, an investigator with the Summit County medical examiner's office, confirmed a body was found at the southeast edge of the park.

Davis' boyfriend, Bobby Cutts Jr., 30, is to be arraigned Monday in Canton Municipal Court on two counts of murder, including the unborn child, the sheriff's department said. Davis was due to deliver a baby girl on July 3.

(Story continues below)

Telephone messages seeking comment were left at the office of Cutts' lawyer, Bradley Iams, and the home and office of the Rev. C.A. Richmond, who is Cutts' pastor. Iams' home number is unlisted.

Davis, 26, was reported missing June 15 after her mother, Patricia Porter, found her bedroom in disarray, the furniture overturned and her son, Blake, home alone.

Investigators said the toddler told them "Mommy was crying. Mommy broke the table. Mommy's in rug."

A bed comforter and Davis' cell phone were missing. Items from her purse were scattered on the kitchen floor of her home in nearby Lake Township.

Tim Miller, director of Texas EquuSearch, an internationally active search group that organized the volunteer effort, said Porter and the rest of Davis' family were called together and told about the body in late afternoon.

"A lot of the community stopped their lives to looked for Jessie and that meant so much to her and the entire family that they knew they were not alone in this," he said.

Chief Deputy Rick Perez said the case was still being investigated. He would not comment on whether there were any other suspects.

Cutts, a Canton police officer, is the father of Davis' son, and her family says he also is the father of the unborn child. Authorities had questioned him and searched his home during the investigation.

Cutts has said he and his wife are separated and that she knew about the affair with Davis.

Cutts has been on paid administrative leave from his job.

"There is no denying that this has resulted in giving a black eye in the opinion of the local community as well as the opinion of the rest of the nation," Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm said of the arrest of a police officer.

He asked that people not judge his department on "the isolated acts of a rogue officer."

Rick Pitinii, Porter's attorney, said Davis' family had no comment.

"They have gone through an absolute roller coaster of emotions," he said. "I've seen them laugh, cry, be angry — everything you can imagine. ... It's tough."

"They need to be together, and they need to be alone, and they need to grieve."

Thousands of volunteers had searched for Davis over several days. Cutts joined volunteers in an earlier search.

He was also convicted of 2 counts of murder.

What a tragic story. How sad that this young mother lost her baby. She must be saddened too that not all of us see Lileigh as a baby. Sad, sad, sad.
Posted by: Carla at March 27, 2008 1:03 PM

Carla, I see Lileigh as a baby. I just understand why the judge felt he had to rule the way he did.

Thanks Hal.
My heart hurts.

Amanda, my experience is similar, the man who shot me and shot and killed my boyfriend at the time was given a 15 year sentence with parole possible after 5. He was only convicted for armed robbery, and that was in regards to an entirely different case! Oy, the justice system.

Also, Carla, I see her as a baby too. It's tragic that her mother lost her. I also see and understand why the judge felt obligated to rule as he did.

And I'm making an apple pie right now ^_^ I've never made an apple pie before, just cherry, pumpkin, and pecan. But boy, does the kitchen smell good!

Thanks Erin.
I want pie.

"Amanda, I didn't mean to sound unsympathetic. The legal techicalities are there for a reason, to protect us all. Sometimes it doesn't seem like "justice" is done, but even a harsh prison term doesn't bring back our loved ones. "

Yup, and it's the legal technicalities that protect parents who kill their unborn children too!
Justice was not done in this case.

That poor woman. Sometimes I feel there is no justice in this world, and I wish we could string people up by their thumbs and do terrible things to make them suffer. (Not very pro-life sounding of me, I know) But ahh, I feel very sad for this woman, and her baby, and whoever else was obviously affected by this man's actions.

How on earth do people not count the child as a person? Even out of her mother's womb, she still wasn't a person? Says who?

So, would it be a mistake for this mother to ask for the remains of this non-person?

Heather- that's the exact problem. Once Lileigh was born, once she was out of the womb, legal personhood was attributed. The problem is that the crime took place BEFORE she was a legal person, so he can't be convicted on that count. It might seem cruel, but like I said, it's not like he's going to go off scot-free.

This is a sad, but rare story. Like a lot of people, I have some pretty big issues with "borderline laws", laws that are proposed merely as a stepping stone for a larger agenda- in this case, banning abortion.

Heather- that's the exact problem. Once Lileigh was born, once she was out of the womb, legal personhood was attributed. The problem is that the crime took place BEFORE she was a legal person, so he can't be convicted on that count. It might seem cruel, but like I said, it's not like he's going to go off scot-free.

This is a sad, but rare story. Like a lot of people, I have some pretty big issues with "borderline laws", laws that are proposed merely as a stepping stone for a larger agenda- in this case, banning abortion.

heather, why was a pregnant woman tazered by police? I mean if she was doing something where they could not control her, say brandishing a knife in a group of people, then it is her fault she was teaseled and her fault she did it while pregnant.

It should be murder because even at the time of the accident it was still a human being who died.

(Not very pro-life sounding of me, I know)

We all understand. It's only human of you : )

Erin, the lady in my post was 9 months pregnant. Her child never left her womb. They died together. Her ex-boyfriend was still charged with 2 counts of murder.

Jess, that lady didn't die.

Don't you see? Police are in trouble for tazering her while pregnant.

Heather,

What is even sadder about that story is that her other child saw it happen. The reports say the little boy told the police, "Mommy broke the table," and "Daddy was taking Mommy out in the rug and Mommy was crying." He was 4 years old I believe.

What women? The one who was tazered? They shouldn't be in trouble. Say a pregnant woman was trying to stab your child? Wouldn't you do what you had to do to get her away from your child? No, even if it wasn't the same as that case, wouldn't you do what you had to to save your child?

Skip to comments.

Stun Gun Used on Pregnant Woman in Ohio
AP via Breitbarb.com ^ | 11/29/07

Posted on 11/29/2007 9:25:51 AM PST by Abathar

TROTWOOD, Ohio (AP) - A policeman forced a pregnant woman to the ground and used a stun gun on her when she refused to answer the officer's questions and resisted being handcuffed, authorities said Thursday. The woman went to the police department in this Dayton suburb on Nov. 18 to ask officers to take custody of her 1-year-old son, said Michael Etter, Trotwood's public safety director.

The woman told the officer she was "tired of playing games" with the baby's father, Etter said. The woman refused to answer questions, became frustrated and tried to leave with the child, Etter said. The officer feared allowing her to leave could jeopardize the child and he decided to detain her to get more information.

He said the officer grabbed the woman, got the child away from her and forced her to the ground. When she resisted being handcuffed and tried to get away, the officer used the stun gun on her, Etter said.

The woman wore a winter coat and did not tell the officer she was pregnant, Etter said. "She was totally uncooperative," he said.

The woman was arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest and transported to jail, Etter said. When she arrived at the jail, it was discovered that she was pregnant, and an officer took her to the hospital, he said. The condition of the woman and the fetus was not known.

The FBI is investigating the arrest and Etter said the police department is conducting its own probe to determine whether excessive force was used.

Amanda -I agree with you regarding the malice and intent part, but then your logic takes the usual illogical abortion-choice twist:

based on my argument for the legality of abortion, which is the concept of the mother having the right to consent or not consent to the pregnancy, this was absolutely, without a doubt, murder and/or manslaughter. not only because she was viable, but because her mother had obviously consented to her pregnancy.

So the mother's consent makes the child a living human being, complete with moral rights?

You're saying only mothers can declare her children full human beings.

How come she doesn't have the "right" to declare them non-human later - simply because they changed location? Aha - her body is some sort of magical "property rights" boundary! Beware, ye all who enter here!

Your argument is actually a deviated form of Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist case for bodily rights, which fails precisely because the child is in it's natural environment - the womb, and yet she is not the mother's body, but an entirely separate entity. A child, as an intrinsic living human being from conception, has all the inalienable rights of human beings from that time on until natural death. Which means those inalienable rights (such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) cannot be revoked by others. Considering that life is the first of the inalienable rights, any time after life begins, to kill that life is murder. Blackmun's logic went circular at the point of viability, (because he said so - check it out, it's circular logic - really!)

But person or not, if a fetus does not have the consent of the mother to be using her body, she has the right to remove it, even if that means it will die.

So using your logic, the mother can consent to anyone to murder her child without consequences. That makes all the difference - the consent, because the mother is bestowing the right to life. (Somehow a man is involved...but he doesn't count in abortion-choice logic. Feminist political power plays and all.)

Tell me how location (in the womb) changes the moral agency of the unborn, because location doesn't change anyone simply because we've passed 6 inches down the birth canal. The unborn are the same being before they make that journey, and you agree:

That it doesn't matter how old the fetus is, if the mother wanted it there in her body and someone killed it without her permission, they should be charged with a crime!!

Amanda - you have a thinking problem: the prenatal child is still an "it", although here you agree she's a real human being. Imagine if I referred to you as "it":

It (Amanda) has something important to say, but it can't really clarify what it means, because it seems to be suffering from confusion and invalid logic.

The woman may have been wrong, but why did everything change as soon as they discovered she was pregnant? If an unborn fetus isn't a person, why not just throw her in the cell and be done with it??

Why would we worry about the fetus? It's not a person. Or does it automatically BECOME a person as soon as a few heads might roll?

"The officer feared allowing her to leave could jeopardize the child"

It appeared she was putting her one year old child in danger. She also never told anyone she was pregnant. So are you saying they should just assume every woman is pregnant? Are you saying the safety of the fetus is greater then the safety of the one year old child? I mean, what makes you think she wasn't going to go right out and hurt, possibly even abort, the fetus after that seeing as she was so ready to just give away her other child (because apparently children are just a game to her).

Why did they take her to the hospital?

I am confused as to why that woman didn't have custody of her 1-year old in the first place.

Sounds a little fishy to me.

"If an unborn fetus isn't a person, why not just throw her in the cell and be done with it??"

What if she started to miscarry or had some other type of internal trama? And she seemed really unstable. I think she must have needed some type of medical attention.

"If an unborn fetus isn't a person, why not just throw her in the cell and be done with it??"

What if she started to miscarry or had some other type of internal trama? And she seemed really unstable. I think she must have needed some type of medical attention.

She did have custody Elizabeth, and was trying to give her child away to the police because she didn't want to "play games with the father" and then tried to take the child back with her.

Wait, wait, wait...she gave her kid to the cops because that would show her BD she wasn't playing games? LOL...wow...some people are nutso. I feel bad for her kids. Nobody deserves to have to deal with that kind of crazy drama...especially a one-year old.

I understand. I didn't condone the woman's actions at all. It says in the article that when they discovered that she was pregnant, they took her to the hospital.

What if she started to miscarry or had some other type of internal trama?------------------------------ Why should we care? It's not a person!

I bet if she was having an appendicitis they would have taken her to the hospital.

Well if anything she's a person and a miscarriage could hurt her.

Jess, why was Scott Peterson charged with 2 counts of murder?

Why was Bobby Cutts Jr. charged with 2 counts of murder?

Time out here y'all. A "stun gun" is NOT a tazer. A stun gun gives a little bit of a jolt - a bit painful, but harmess. A tazer is a very different story.

The article you posted Heather says "stun gun", and it seems like the officer was well within his rights to use it. A tazer would have been overkill I think.

Amanda, why was Scott Peterson charged with 2 counts of murder?

Can someone answer me?? Are we dealing with one person or 2? Please give me a detailed explaination.

Stun gun. Tazer. What difference does it make? Must I keep telling you that I do NOT condone this woman's actions? The point remains. She was taken to the hospital after they discovered she was pregnant.

heather, they killed two human's. Like I said, the point of abortion isn't to kill a fetus, it's to end a pregnancy. The death of the fetus is just a side effect. It's because the woman has the choice whether or not to be pregnant. No one else but the woman should have a say in it.

Aw, Heather, that's nothing. If that had happened in Chicago, the woman would have wound up shot. That's what our cops do to people who resist arrest.

Uhh - first of all, there is a HUGE difference between a stun gun and a tazer. One could harm a fetus, the other one couldn't.

Second of all, when did I even mention Scott Peterson? Why are you asking me as though I was talking about it?

If you read my initial response to this article, you would see that I have absolutely no problem with charging someone with homicide in a case like this - but you don't like to actually READ anything I write - just pick out a sentence here or there and POUNCE. Its not as fun when you end up agreeing with me I guess, so you'll just ignore that part.

And to people who don't quite understand the pro-choice argument...

A woman's right to her body means that she has the right to abort OR to KEEP the child.

Therefore, by accidentally or intentionally harming the fetus against the mother's wishes, you are violating her bodily right.

Legally, I don't know if that can be considered murder, but I can guarantee that any pro-choice person would not be all "Who cares? It's not a real person!" That's not the argument here. The argument is that if she wanted to have the child and it was forcibly destroyed, her rights are in violation.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say what the charge should be.

heather- you're dealing with one person. I disagree(sometimes even with people on my own side) that killing a pregnant woman should be double murder. I'd like for there to be some kind of middle ground, but I really don't think that it's realistic. It's too touchy of legal ground. And because that type of double murder case is very often targeted for passing borderline laws. That's my problem with it.

Btw, I was reading comedic epitaphs and I came across this one that I thought you guys would get a kick out of:

On the actual tombstone, it says "As I am now, so will you be, remember this and follow me"

Then, some clever vandal inscribed below it "To follow you I'll not consent, until I know which way you went."

I want an answer from one of you pro choicers. What about Scott Peterson? Edyt, Jess, Amanda, can one of you please explain why he ws charged with 2 counts of murder?

Jess, you finally said it! They killed 2 humans! BINGO!

Erin, hello:]

It (Amanda) has something important to say, but it can't really clarify what it means, because it seems to be suffering from confusion and invalid logic.

I bow to the master....I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!!

heather- you're dealing with one person. I disagree(sometimes even with people on my own side) that killing a pregnant woman should be double murder. I'd like for there to be some kind of middle ground, but I really don't think that it's realistic. It's too touchy of legal ground. And because that type of double murder case is very often targeted for passing borderline laws. That's my problem with it.

Btw, I was reading comedic epitaphs and I came across this one that I thought you guys would get a kick out of:

On the actual tombstone, it says "As I am now, so will you be, remember this and follow me"

Then, some clever vandal inscribed below it "To follow you I'll not consent, until I know which way you went."

First I wasn't...
Then I was...
Now I ain't again.

Aw, Heather, that's nothing. If that had happened in Chicago, the woman would have wound up shot. That's what our cops do to people who resist arrest.

Posted by: Edyt at March 27, 2008 3:23 PM---------------------------- And do you have any proof that it wouldn't be considered double murder? Cops in Ohio are pretty bas as*!

oops, should say bad a*s!

Hooves-In-Maw, how nice to see you!!

Hey heather!

Do I believe it should be a double murder? Ummm no.

Do I believe that is up to the judge/jury to decide? Yes.

My opinions are irrelevant in a court of law.

That's what our cops do to people who resist arrest.

Really? My no-good BD has been charged with that and he's still alive. unfortunately.

(oops, I'm thinking out loud again.)

Jess, you finally said it! They killed 2 humans! BINGO!

heather, where have you been? I always said a fetus, embryo, Will Duffy is a human.

My opinions are irrelevant in a court of law.

And pretty much everywhere else.

Lol, Elizabeth, you crack me up.

Pregnant woman 'Tasered' by police is convicted

By HECTOR CASTRO
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

She was rushing her son to school. She was eight months pregnant. And she was about to get a speeding ticket she didn't think she deserved.

So when a Seattle police officer presented the ticket to Malaika Brooks, she refused to sign it. In the ensuing confrontation, she suffered burns from a police Taser, an electric stun device that delivers 50,000 volts.

"Probably the worst thing that ever happened to me," Brooks said, in describing that morning during her criminal trial last week on charges of refusing to obey an officer and resisting arrest.

She was found guilty of the first charge because she never signed the ticket, but the Seattle Municipal Court jury could not decide whether she resisted arrest, the reason the Taser was applied.

To her attorneys and critics of police use of Tasers, Brooks' case is an example of police overreaction.

"It's pretty extraordinary that they should have used a Taser in this case," said Lisa Daugaard, a public defender familiar with the case.

Law enforcement officers have said they see Tasers as a tool that can benefit the public by reducing injuries to police and the citizens they arrest.

Seattle police officials declined to comment on this case, citing concerns that Brooks might file a civil lawsuit.

But King County sheriff's Sgt. Donald Davis, who works on the county's Taser policy, said the use of force is a balancing act for law enforcement.

"It just doesn't look good to the public," he said.

Brooks' run-in with police Nov. 23 came six months before Seattle adopted a new policy on Taser use that guides officers on how to deal with pregnant women, the very young, the very old and the infirm. When used on such subjects, the policy states, "the need to stop the behavior should clearly justify the potential for additional risks."

"Obviously, (law enforcement agencies) don't want to use a Taser on young children, pregnant woman or elderly people," Davis said. "But if in your policy you deliberately exclude a segment of the population, then you have potentially closed off a tool that could have ended a confrontation."

Hey Elizabeth, why don't I marry you? We can buy a house, I'll teach your daughter how to play foosball. It will be kinda cool : O

Read this last paragraph. Why don't we want to taser pregnant women?

Oh shut up heather....you know you cannot qualify as a human unless you are a dumb, large eyed, fur covered quadreped being ruthlessly abused and consumed by a naked biped.

LMAO at that one!

Carnivore.

IF A PREGGO WOMAN IS NOT CARRYING A BABY, THEN WHY CAN'T WE TASER HER?

Ooooh, Jess, I don't know about the marriage part..that's a BIG commitment. I don't know if I'm ready for that. lol. but the house and foosball I'm all for. Especially foosball. It's always been my dream for Gabriella to grow up and become a professional foosball player. Then she can support ME! :)

Because it could cause pregnancy complications, heather. Which endangers both the fetus and the mother.

Wow...I just love the tap dancing lessons we get from the PA side. They ought to start charging us...

Ew Elizabeth please don't become one of those horrid show parents who live vicariously through their children. Don't force your baby to become a fooseballer, if she wants to be an emu farmer you should be all for that too.

: )

What do we care about a fetus? It's not human.

Billy Flynn's got nothin' on them.

My parent's used to raise Emus.

They're delicious.

Mmm, Hooves. Don't worry, I have just as little disregard for animals that moo, oink, or cock-a-doodle-doo. In fact, over the past three days, I have eaten all three of them.

And they were DELICIOUS.

*tap* tap tap*

Woo-hoo! Carnivores unite!!

Haha...awww emu's are soo cute! I really don't care what she does...but my brothers have already started her dance training. She knows how to turn in circles and do an arabesque. But really, I'm not going to take her to a dance class til she is AT LEAST 4. I've taught 3-year olds in dance class..and they CAN.NOT.HANDLE.IT. It's pretty much me prying them away from the door and then bunny-hopping in a circle. All parents on here take note: Do not take your chid to a dance class until they will actually want to BE in the class! It helps the teachers out A LOT!

I want a steak.

My parent's used to raise Hooves-in-Maw and THEY WERE DELICIOUS!!!!!

Emu's are cute until the crap on you while you are trying to wrestle them into a trailer.

Getting kicked by an Emu is quite an experience too.

Heather- it is human, but it isn't a person. That's the problem. I don't really know how to put how I'd like it to be actually prosecuted except that it's somewhere between murder and nothing. Like...geh, it's just too abstract for me to describe accurately. Let me think about it for a bit and get back to you, I'm going to try to figure out how best to put it.

Ahhh...but much like dog liver, we are too rich to be healthy. Eat at your own risk...

Ahaha, Elizabeth, you know, I got kicked out of my very first dance class when I was 5 for pushing another girl off the balance beam.

Erin, I'm going to go dig up my post about Ron Paul, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg. Watch how the women struggle with their wording. Whoopi and Joy are both rabid pro aborts. Stay tuned..........

it is human, but it isn't a person

I have to be honest, I don't get this. It just sounds like rationalizing and double-speak to me. But hey, whatever gets ya through the day I guess.

Joy and Whoopi Grill Ron Paul Over Abortion
By Justin McCarthy | December 4, 2007 - 16:35 ET

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul’s December 4 appearance on "The View" did not lead to the predictable agreement between Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on Iraq, but a very strong disagreement over abortion. Whoopi Goldberg, who previously boasted about marching in a NARAL rally with Katie Couric, alluded to her confrontation with Elisabeth Hasselbeck asserted without doubt that "nobody makes this decision lightly."

Co-host Joy Behar occupied most of the segment attacking Paul’s abortion position. Though Behar admitted she believes killing a child immediately before birth is "murder" she asked "what about the first month?" and about the "mental state" or "health" line that many partial birth abortion apologists use.

Ron Paul then asked Behar if she would be okay with a law "that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation." Behar avoided the question claiming she is "not happy with abortion, period."

The transcript of the exchange is below.

BEHAR: I have to hit you with my first question because we discussed it in the in "Hot Topics." I’ve read all of your stuff and I know that you want limited government. Get government out of my life. Right?

REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Good idea!

BEHAR: What about Roe v. Wade? I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body. How do you justify that?

PAUL: Well, I think the question is whether a baby that is unborn, that weighs eight pounds, seventh, eighth month of gestation has any rights. Is it a person?

BEHAR: But what about the first month or when you usually get an abortion?

PAUL: You’re not for all abortion.

BEHAR: I don’t know. It would have to come up in a specific case.

PAUL: So you, so you don’t want me to do an abortion on somebody that is an eight pound, normal baby.

BEHAR: No, of course not. But if-

PAUL: So you’re not for abortion really.

BEHAR: No wait a minute. But if the woman wants to abort a ch- a baby at eight months, something’s wrong either with her mental state or her health, so that-

PAUL: But the law, the law says they can do that.

BEHAR: Yeah, but the law should. It should-

PAUL: The mother, if it’s her body, why can’t she do it?

BEHAR: Shouldn’t it be between the doctor and the woman?

GOLDBERG: That’s, that’s not exactly true sir. That’s not exactly true. There is a limit as to when you can have an abortion. I believe that’s the truth.

PAUL: All the way through the third trimester.

GOLDBERG: I don’t think, I don’t think so anymore.

PAUL: Roe versus Wade allows it in a third trimester. It dictates to the doctor what he can do in the first trimester, second trimester, and third trimester. So it is the law of the land.

BEHAR: So are you not against, just you like Roe v. Wade, except to a point. Is that what your position is?

PAUL: No, I don’t like the Federal government doing anything.

BEHAR: Okay.

PAUL: So, I want the states to deal with it.

BEHAR: But what’s the- if you’re against abortion what’s the difference who’s doing it, the states or the government?

PAUL: Well, there’s a big difference because the Constitution does given them- the states deal with murder and violence and manslaughter.

BEHAR: Okay, so it’s not a moral position. It’s more of a particular position.

PAUL: It’s a legal position.

SHEPHERD: The states deal with it.

PAUL: It’s a legal position because I honor and respect the rights of the mother, but your home too, your home is your castle. I don’t want any government in your home, no searches without warrant-

BEHAR: Right.

PAUL: -no cameras. But you can’t kill your baby in your home.

BEHAR: Well, no, but that’s murder. That’s different.

PAUL: Yeah, okay, but somebody sees this- I have, as a physician, I’ve been trained to bring life into the world. And if I do harm to the baby, I get sued. So the baby is alive and has rights, right?

GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this: so what about-

BEHAR: Well, yes but that’s very unusual. What an unusual situation. We’re talking about girls who are in trouble and they want to have an abortion the first month.

PAUL: Would you be okay with a law that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation?

BEHAR: Look, I’m not happy with abortion period, you know?

PAUL: Well, nobody is.

BEHAR: Nobody is, but that’s not the point.

GOLDBERG: Well, that’s, that’s the idea. But here’s my question: If you make a decision that this is where you need to go, because I said to somebody else earlier on this show, no one makes this decision lightly. This is not someone somebody says "oh I think I’ll go get this." This is not a fun thing to go do. So someone has come to that place to make that decision is because it really needs to be there. Now, I think you should be able to get some help if you’re reaching out for somebody like that. What bothers me is that there is no one who says "here’s what we can do" because, you know, we have all of these children. What are we going to do with them? If everybody has the kids. Nobody, the churches don’t want to take them. Nobody wants to put them in the thing- no I want to finish the thing, period.

BEHAR: Alright, answer.

PAUL: Well, the question is whether abortion should be done on demand and who controls it. What you’re saying is a very difficult problem that we can deal with. And the more difficult a problem that we have, the more you want it to be held locally. Before Roe versus Wade, before it was legalized across the board, on demand, states did, I saw it happening, abortions were done on rare circumstances and it was done with caution.. There was a recognition , there was a recognition that life was valuable. And I don’t think anybody is going to win this. You’re not even for abortion, for anybody, anytime, a minute before birth. You don’t want to abort these normal babies.

BEHAR: No, that’s murder.

PAUL: At the same time, I don’t think we’ll ever reach the stage where there will be no abortions. But I want, I want to sort this out-

BEHAR: Okay.

PAUL: -the way the Constitution mandates and that is at the local level.

—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.

Posted by: heather at March 26, 2008 6:43 AM

Heather- I read it the other day. To be honest, the massive amount that I cannot stand Ron Paul keeps me from taking him seriously at all. I don't know much about Joy Behar and I like Whoopi, but don't really know her politics well enough to judge or really care about them.

I'm just trying to figure out how...cause, like, in a way, I'd consider causing a miscarriage to be almost like theft, because you're taking something away from the woman without her consent. I can't equate it with murdering a conscious person, though, because that, to me, is something that can actually happen to a fully aware person. I just don't know.

BEHAR: No, that’s murder.
Behar crumbles.

Elizabeth- humanity is attributed by having human DNA. You shed thousands of 'human' epithelial cells every day. This doesn't mean that you kill thousands of people everyday.

Actually, Whoopi's had 8 abortions, but she says it's not an easy decision. Well, why put yourself into a position to make it 8 times?

The point of this post is to show you that you cannot maintain a lie. I can't find any proof that Behar has ever had an abortion, but she had to admit that it was murder. It is murder.

See, all I really care about in a celebrity is that they're entertaining. Whoopi can put me in stitches laughing. So can Ellen DeGeneres. So can Neal Boortz- whom I SEVERELY disagree with on most issues. I'll listen to anyone who will keep me entertained- it doesn't mean that I agree with them.

Erin said

it is human, but it isn't a person.

It's a human it!

next thing you know them human non-persons will be taking over the world - all the abortion choicers keep mentioning them.

Maybe that's why they're killing them "its"

(Is the plural of human non-persons "its"? or is just singular, like deer?) "It" is confusing.

HAHA Erin, you crack me up. All of the little girlies in my classes I taught were sweet except for the Tuesday morning girls. Then I decided to bribe them with stickers at the end of class...it worked for like 5 minutes on that Tuesday class! That class had the youngest girls of them all so I think that's why they had such issues. Half of them wouldn't even come into the room cause their mommies were going to leave. I'm like WHY are you trying to force your kid into this? They.aren't.ready!

Chris-

I must say that I don't understand your post at ALL.

Haha, Heather, is Behar now the authority for all things to do with abortion?

Pro-choicers know it's killing a fetus/child/whatever. They're not and should not be disputing that fact.

What they are disputing is the pro-life view that it should be a punishable or illegal offense.

so Chris, do you get offended when proud new parents put up a sign that says "*ITS* a Boy!"
or if a pregnant mom who may or may not know the sex of her fetus says " *ITS* Kicking!"

I mean, seriously, I don't think I've ever met a single pregnant woman who has not referred to her fetus as "IT" at some point.

If you really take the use of that word as a sign that someone is trying to say a baby is not a human, you must have beef with a WHOOOOOOLE lot of women who are very excited to become moms.

Also: They are not denying it is human. What they are saying is that it does not have the rights that born humans have.

And I believe I said this in an earlier post, but just because you're born doesn't mean you have rights either. You just have the right to not be killed at that point. You don't have the right to drink or smoke or drive a car.

I mean, seriously, I don't think I've ever met a single pregnant woman who has not referred to her fetus as "IT" at some point.

See, this is what made me mad that they couldn't get a clear shot of my baby's boy or girl parts during the ultrasound, because I didn't like calling my baby, "it." I wanted to know if she was a boy or girl at that point so I could call her a he or a she...it makes me think I'm growing an alien in my belly or something by calling the baby an "it."

Be honest: It makes you feel like a pro-choicer.

It makes you feel like a pro-choicer.

eeeeek, no way. hehehe.

Elizabeth,
What? No cute in-utero names? Scooby, Peanut, Punkin, Sweet Pea? :)

Carla,

I did call her crazy legs. lol.

My friend Gretchen is at 34 weeks right now, and before they knew Aidyn's gender, they called her 'Widget'. I thought it was cute!

If you really take the use of that word as a sign that someone is trying to say a baby is not a human, you must have beef with a WHOOOOOOLE lot of women who are very excited to become moms

Actually Amanda I'm only pointing out the usual silliness that accompanies abortion-choicers dialog when they discuss the issue, usually avoiding any assignment of sign of humanity to the unborn.

I could also point out that prior to Roe people referred to an unborn baby as babies, even when in-utero.

I mean, seriously, I don't think I've ever met a single pregnant woman who has not referred to her fetus as "IT" at some point.

See - you have a hard time even calling it a "baby".
(I too have used the word "it" above out of practical short-hand, but that's not what I'm lampooning. The target of my jabs is the bizarre unnatural distortions people make when discussing this issue, which seems to be a side-effect of feminism...but I digress.)

Your discussion is unnatural and distorted because your perspective doesn't allow you to describe the naturalness of the child within the womb. To do so would "humanize" the child.

Just like framing the debate as "choice", dehumanizing the unborn is a product of the feminist power movement.

Whereas dehumanizing the woman is a product of the pro-life power movement.

I always called my baby "the baby."

Edyt, get a clue. How do we dehumanize women?

Whereas dehumanizing the woman is a product of the pro-life power movement.

Yeah, we dehumanize women by demanding that she and her man show social responsibility and accountability for their sexual interactions.

We dehumanize women by demanding that they're selective with their men, seeing themselves as infinitely valuable and only sacrificially obtainable - that he needs to be willing to give up his life for her, and their children.

We dehumanize women by demanding that they be selfless with their lives, being just as sacrificial with their families as their husband is.

You're absolutely right Edyt - that's dehumanizing. It's spiritual and practically divine.

It is rather amazing that otherwise intelligent human beings can arrive at the conclusion that a human fetus is not a human baby. Sadly, some people only wake up after a tragedy such as this hits closer to home. One post remarked coldly that the dead baby was not a person. Should something like that happen to a loved one of that individual, I would suggest that person zip their mouth.

Anony, you are right!

I also called my unbon baby "my dolly" while she was in utero.

I always called my baby "the baby."
--------------------------
I don't know, when I hear baby I think of a little human all swaddled in a comfy blanket... When I hear fetus I picture a little human floating around in amniotic fluid. It would be like calling an 80 year old woman a teenager.

Jess, you pictured a tiny human floating? You would be right.

All swaddled up in a comfy womb then Jess. :)

No I mean swaddled in clothing, not blood and pus and mucus. And all pooping out of its belly button.

LOL one of my bunnies is trying to hump the other (they are both boys)!

I assume he is sexually frustrated.

Get him a girl bunny! And i assume you'll be getting them married? OH let me do the wedding!!! I have the perfect location!

We aren't inviting heather though... she'll probably just eat them > (

They will probably get married, but I'm a little nervous about it. They seem to embody the people I named them after, VERY WELL, and simon and garfunkel have a track record for breakups.

I'll just make sure their cage has condoms, never know where they go when I'm not home ;)

Do you want to see pictures?! I just got them in monday.

I know, I was bragging to some friends about my rabbits and then several of them were talking about how on easter they were eating rabbit stew, and how delicious rabbits were. It made me sad :(

Oh I would love to! Do you have a facebook? I do and I have a lot of pictures of my hamsters, Sandy, who lives with my parent's while I'm at school and Smoothie who lives with my boyfriend : ) I'm going to get a Subway sammi... I'll brb.

Edyt: "Legally, I don't know if that can be considered murder, but I can guarantee that any pro-choice person would not be all "Who cares? It's not a real person!" That's not the argument here. The argument is that if she wanted to have the child and it was forcibly destroyed, her rights are in violation."

Oh, I see Edyt, so if the mother didn't want her unborn baby, would it be Ok if her husband kicked her in the stomach? with her consent of course...

Jess,
What pus? What mucous? What poop?
Someday I hope you find out what it's like to carry your own child. It is one of the greatest miracles of my life.

Carla, I told heather when I pictured a baby I pictured it swaddled. I meant swaddled in a blanket. She said in-utero it already is. When babies come out aren't they covered in a cheese like mucous substances?

"It is one of the greatest miracles of my life."
That's your life, and I happy it made you so happy.

: )

Jess, I'm about to upload a couple pics if you want to be my facebook friend and check it out. I also have pictures of my hamsters up!

None of mine were, Jess.
I miss those infant days. I mean daze.

How will I find you on facebook PIP?

No Carla I am almost 100% sure all new babies are covered in it. To protect their skin while they are in water for 9 months. Maybe they just wiped your babies off before they handed them to you?

I found you PIP! Carla, where's your facebook?

I miss those infant days. I mean daze.

Amen, Carla. Amen. I don't really recall things that occurred before month #3. Except the pain from my healing c-section. That leaves lasting memories.

Oh man, I think I will have to make a new facebook cause I want you all to be friends with me on it. It will have to be "secret" though, I have too many stalkers who steal pictures of my baby and give them to unmentionable losers. Well just one in particular...maybe I'll use a code name.

Jess,
I am there somewhere on facebook, I think.

If you are talking about the vernix stuff I believe that is on babies that are early. Mine were born later than their due dates. They were all placed on my stomach right away. Except for my last. He was born in water. Very cool. Vernix or not...bundles of joy every single one.

Everybody facebook me!

Jess finally got it! Thanks ;)

Elizabeth just friend request me. I'm an administrator on the group "I Can Haz Choice, kthxbai" Just find that group and you'll know who I am. And you can always block people. I've blocked like 10.

Carla, maybe. I watching a baby being born for a class once and I remember them pointing it out.
I was trying to find a picture of it but I found this:
http://www.wunderphoto.rilinger.com/wunderphoto/children/new_born_baby.jpg
Doesn't he look too old to be newly born?

AAAWWWWW!

Jess,
She is adorable! Absolutely perfect!

@Jess: That's what my little brother looked like when he was born as he was a bit on the late side and weighed 10lbs 4oz and was 21in long.

My poor, poor mother...she refused an epidural (as she did with all of us chitlins)...considering her previous chitlins (my other little brother and I) were both 7 lbs and no more than 18in and then here comes Matthew...this big hulking beast of a baby.

He was also the only ginger in the hospital nursery, all the other babies were little dark-haired Italian babies. :)

"Get him a girl bunny! And i assume you'll be getting them married? OH let me do the wedding!!! I have the perfect location!"

Funny story, when my daughter was about 4, we had gerbils. One day, there were gerbil babies. She started crying, I asked her what was wrong, she said "I missed the wedding."

Its a matter of states law and what the DA wants to do. Some DAs like the publicity a 'double homicide' generates. If I remember correctly, in CA a 'double hommicide' allowed the DA to ask for the death penalty.

I have a question for anyone here who is Christian or Jewish. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if someone is doing something reckless and violent (fighting, but I think fleeing the police, possibly under the influence of drugs, would fit) and causes a miscarriage to the fetus of a bystanding pregnant woman, the offending person should be fined. However, if the offending person hurts the woman, he should be punished an eye for an eye. If the eye for an eye law is in place here, then why wouldn't a miscarriage be punished with death? It seems to me that the reason is that the fetus is not considered as much of a person as the born people, and so the killing of the fetus is not considered murder. For those of you who are Christian, I know that Jesus replaced the eye for an eye mentality with mercy, but if the Old Testament was inspired by God, then this law should reflect God's belief regarding the personhood of fetuses. What do you think?

Funny story, when my daughter was about 4, we had gerbils. One day, there were gerbil babies. She started crying, I asked her what was wrong, she said "I missed the wedding."

Awwww, that is the cutest thing Hal!!!

Hey, everyone facebook me!!! You can probably find me through PIP or Rae, possibly Jess. :)

I have a question for anyone here who is Christian or Jewish. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if someone is doing something reckless and violent (fighting, but I think fleeing the police, possibly under the influence of drugs, would fit) and causes a miscarriage to the fetus of a bystanding pregnant woman, the offending person should be fined. However, if the offending person hurts the woman, he should be punished an eye for an eye. If the eye for an eye law is in place here, then why wouldn't a miscarriage be punished with death? It seems to me that the reason is that the fetus is not considered as much of a person as the born people, and so the killing of the fetus is not considered murder. For those of you who are Christian, I know that Jesus replaced the eye for an eye mentality with mercy, but if the Old Testament was inspired by God, then this law should reflect God's belief regarding the personhood of fetuses. What do you think?

Posted by: judgesnineteen at March 28, 2008 11:39 AM

Perhaps the punishment is less because the reckless offender may have been unaware that the woman was pregnant. In that case, the death of the unborn baby/fetus was unintentional. That's my guess.

good question, & excellent point, judgesnineteen!

Jesus did indeed come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law. He said that God will write the laws on our hearts and minds.

I believe that many of our "lawmakers", judges, etc., do not know God, so therefore, they don't have His law written on their hearts and minds, so abide by "man's law". Which, of course, are the silly ones that make absolutely no sense EXACTLY in cases like these.

And I agree 100% that God made it clear in the law that you mentioned in Exodus 21:22-25, that a fetus is indeed a very special PERSON!!!

Exodus 21:22-25

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

"Very special person" - well, it was still a fine for causing a miscarriage, and the "eye for eye" stuff applied to harm to the woman.

Jill, I thank you for constantly giving us the news in the pro-life circuit. It is great to see a fellow pro-lifer with such action and passion. I'm not sure, but I'm almost positive you are a Christian. More joy! I am as well, so I would like to exercise some fraternal correction. I don't think you should be calling this man a "pathetic loser." Although I agree that his actions were awful, this man is still one of God's creations, and I firmly believe that we should pray for his soul, not condemn him. It is terrible to see such a passionate woman use such hateful language.