Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Cuomo’s Abortion Law and Murder

 

A pregnant woman was killed in Queens. Witnesses heard her scream, “He’s going to kill the baby!” The attacker stabbed her repeatedly, including multiple stabs into her belly. It would seem he was indeed targeting the baby. The killer turned out to be the victim’s ex-boyfriend. He was caught and will be charged with one count of murder in the second degree.

You may ask, what exactly does this horrendous crime have to do with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act? Prior to that law being enacted there would have been additional charges for killing the unborn child. Now, aborting a child is never a crime, even if the abortion is performed against the mother’s will. The murder of the mother is still a crime, but killing the baby is not. That means this man will only be facing one count of murder.

A murder charge is still very serious. But what if the mother had lived? Then he would only have an attempted murder charge and the baby would still be dead. What if instead of stabbing he had just punched her repeatedly in the stomach? Then it would have been assault but the baby would still be dead.

There is an intellectual honesty here that was lacking before. Either something is or is not a human being. A “clump of cells” does not magically become a person because the mother wants it to. In the same way, a baby doesn’t turn into a meaningless clump of cells based solely on the mother’s say-so. Either it is a life or it is not. The State of New York determined that it is not.

This is what it means to be “Pro-Woman?”

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 22 comments.

  1. Member

    Sickening. Just sickening.

    • #1
    • February 10, 2019 at 9:37 am
    • 11 likes
  2. Member

    You stated the philosophy of the pro-abortionist very clearly and succinctly. Thanks.

    • #2
    • February 10, 2019 at 9:43 am
    • 6 likes
  3. Member

    This is what dystopia looks like.

    • #3
    • February 10, 2019 at 11:09 am
    • 5 likes
  4. Member

    Yes, the way New York rewrote the law, the state significantly reduced the potential criminal consequences for attacking a pregnant woman.

    Could that have an unintended consequence of increasing attacks on pregnant women? 

    • #4
    • February 10, 2019 at 11:47 am
    • 2 likes
  5. Thatcher

    Since words once spoken cannot be unspoken, even in a jury trial, perhaps the prosecutor can mention in court before the judge and jury that the New York Law deems that this woman’s baby is now not considered to be a person, so they only were able to file the one count of murder and not two. Maybe those in the courtroom would listen to this comment and ponder it. The prosecutor could be reprimanded by the judge for the comment, and the jury directed to ignore it, but they would not be able to un-hear it. I wonder if that might affect their deliberations.

    • #5
    • February 10, 2019 at 12:03 pm
    • 8 likes
  6. Member

    First, the abortion-worshippers made war on unborn humans. Now they’re launching war on pregnant women.

    • #6
    • February 10, 2019 at 12:04 pm
    • 8 likes
  7. Member

    There are two reasons that this man should spend the rest of his life in prison.

    The first is he didn’t stab this woman because at around 9 months there wasn’t any chance that a litter of puppies, or kittens would enter this world, it was because a human being would enter this world.

    The second is that he was totally indifferent to the life of a woman that was closest to him. To stab someone multiple times is inspired by rage. He cannot control his rage. That rage could manifest itself anytime against any person.

    I don’t care what his issues are, or where they come from. As a former police officer I wasn’t a therapist, but unlike a therapist I had a pretty good idea who would continue to commit violent acts in the future. This guy is a prime candidate for future mayhem, and violence.

    • #7
    • February 10, 2019 at 1:02 pm
    • 10 likes
  8. Thatcher

    Lord, have mercy! On this woman, her preborn child – and on us…

    • #8
    • February 10, 2019 at 1:23 pm
    • 6 likes
  9. Member

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Yes, the way New York rewrote the law, the state significantly reduced the potential criminal consequences for attacking a pregnant woman.

    Could that have an unintended consequence of increasing attacks on pregnant women?

     

    What makes you think it would be unintended?

    • #9
    • February 10, 2019 at 2:01 pm
    • 3 likes
  10. Coolidge

    Yeah. I mean Arahant joked about killing in the 111th trimester as abortion. At what point is murder of an adult no longer murder? I guess that’s when the decedent is not a voting member in good standing of your party.

    • #10
    • February 10, 2019 at 4:39 pm
    • Like
  11. Coolidge

    This is what pure evil looks like. No other way around it.

     

    • #11
    • February 10, 2019 at 5:29 pm
    • 5 likes
  12. Moderator

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Yes, the way New York rewrote the law, the state significantly reduced the potential criminal consequences for attacking a pregnant woman.

    Could that have an unintended consequence of increasing attacks on pregnant women?

    Oh yes, I’m sure that there are would-be murderers who decide not to kill their pregnant victims because they’re afraid of getting charged with double homicide instead of just a single one. “Of course I’ll risk a death sentence for killing my ex, but risking two death sentences? It’s just not worth it, man.”

    Could we please be realistic? The murderer wanted to kill this woman and the baby. He didn’t give a damn about what the legal consequences were, and he would have committed these crimes regardless of NY abortion law.

    • #12
    • February 10, 2019 at 6:28 pm
    • 4 likes
  13. Coolidge

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Yes, the way New York rewrote the law, the state significantly reduced the potential criminal consequences for attacking a pregnant woman.

    Could that have an unintended consequence of increasing attacks on pregnant women?

    Oh yes, I’m sure that there are would-be murderers who decide not to kill their pregnant victims because they’re afraid of getting charged with double homicide instead of just a single one. “Of course I’ll risk a death sentence for killing my ex, but risking two death sentences? It’s just not worth it, man.”

    Could we please be realistic? The murderer wanted to kill this woman and the baby. He didn’t give a damn about what the legal consequences were, and he would have committed these crimes regardless of NY abortion law.

    But being convicted of 2nd-degree murder puts him out on the streets to enjoy life again in probably 5-7 years at the most. Double 1st-degree murder would have put him away a lot longer.

    By the way, how did he get charged with 2nd degree murder? Let me guess, his defense is that he was not trying to kill anyone he was only trying to kill the fetus and the mother’s death was accidental or incidental to the act; mere incompetence, negligence or carelessness. Good defense.

    Moral? You can murder anyone with relative impunity if you think they’re pregnant.

    • #13
    • February 10, 2019 at 6:39 pm
    • 2 likes
  14. Member

    Vance Richards: There is an intellectual honesty here that was lacking before. Either something is or is not a human being.

    Medical technology has come far enough, since the days of Roe, that no one in right mind can possibly deny any more what that “clump of cells” actually is, which makes the recent legislative changes in NY all the more heinous, because now we’re all being asked (nay, ordered) to participate in what we all know to be a grotesque and grievous lie that people tell themselves (and scream at others) in the hope of keeping their consciences clean. 

    And the local news is predictably carrying water for the cause. I actually heard a local NY1 reporter blithely sum up the new legislation last week as having “made it possible for access to abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities or when the life of the mother was in danger.” (Yes, that was it. Period. That was all she had to say about it.)

    The above summation didn’t even meet the bare minimum standard I’ve grown accustomed to over the years from that channel, of “somewhat inaccurate.”

    This time, they went with a bald-faced lie.

     

    • #14
    • February 10, 2019 at 8:04 pm
    • 2 likes
  15. Member

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Yes, the way New York rewrote the law, the state significantly reduced the potential criminal consequences for attacking a pregnant woman.

    Could that have an unintended consequence of increasing attacks on pregnant women?

    Oh yes, I’m sure that there are would-be murderers who decide not to kill their pregnant victims because they’re afraid of getting charged with double homicide instead of just a single one. “Of course I’ll risk a death sentence for killing my ex, but risking two death sentences? It’s just not worth it, man.”

    Could we please be realistic? The murderer wanted to kill this woman and the baby. He didn’t give a damn about what the legal consequences were, and he would have committed these crimes regardless of NY abortion law.

    This guy probably wouldn’t. But what about the guy who beats his wife/girlfriend with the intent of killing the baby but knows enough to stop before killing the wife/girlfriend?

    • #15
    • February 10, 2019 at 8:41 pm
    • Like
  16. Member

    If you can forgive the self-reference, here’s a relevant post, though the new law makes some of it out of date.

    • #16
    • February 10, 2019 at 10:51 pm
    • 2 likes
  17. Member

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    If you can forgive the self-reference, here’s a relevant post, though the new law makes some of it out of date.

    No one ever accused the Left of coherent thinking…

    • #17
    • February 11, 2019 at 6:49 am
    • 1 like
  18. Moderator

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Yes, the way New York rewrote the law, the state significantly reduced the potential criminal consequences for attacking a pregnant woman.

    Could that have an unintended consequence of increasing attacks on pregnant women?

    Oh yes, I’m sure that there are would-be murderers who decide not to kill their pregnant victims because they’re afraid of getting charged with double homicide instead of just a single one. “Of course I’ll risk a death sentence for killing my ex, but risking two death sentences? It’s just not worth it, man.”

    Could we please be realistic? The murderer wanted to kill this woman and the baby. He didn’t give a damn about what the legal consequences were, and he would have committed these crimes regardless of NY abortion law.

    This guy probably wouldn’t. But what about the guy who beats his wife/girlfriend with the intent of killing the baby but knows enough to stop before killing the wife/girlfriend?

    So you think that a month ago, there were people in New York who refused to give a pregnant woman a miscarriage by beating her for fear of a manslaughter conviction, but now under the new abortion law will be willing to do so because they’re only risking an assault conviction? 

    Didn’t conservatives used to laugh at this kind of silliness with hate crimes? It requires the same logical analysis by criminals. “Oh, I really want to murder that guy, but he’s gay, so I’ll also get a hate crime charge. Better not.”

    Contrary to all the CSI type programs, most crimes are not done by intelligent masterminds who carefully consider whether and how to commit their crimes. They’re crimes of passion, and no amount of elevating or degrading the status of the victim through the law will affect the criminal’s choices in that moment of passion. 

    • #18
    • February 11, 2019 at 9:14 am
    • 1 like
  19. Member

    @Flicker (View Comment):

    [snip]

    By the way, how did he get charged with 2nd degree murder? Let me guess, his defense is that he was not trying to kill anyone he was only trying to kill the fetus and the mother’s death was accidental or incidental to the act; mere incompetence, negligence or carelessness. Good defense.

    Moral? You can murder anyone with relative impunity if you think they’re pregnant.

    To address the question of why 2nd degree murder, and not first degree? My guess is that first degree murder would require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the killer engaged in demontrable premeditation ahead of the act, and that is not an easy element to prove.

    Sometimes its absence leads to acquittal, when the defense resists allowing the jury to be charged that they can alternatively convict on a lesser included offense. Thus, their decision is either guilty of first degree premeditated murder, or not guilty.

    That is what faced the jury in the notorious Casey Anthony case. With no direct evidence of premeditation (the prosecutor relied on arguing inferences from how the body was found and evidence thereon), the jury could not convict and so she was acquitted.

    • #19
    • February 11, 2019 at 1:21 pm
    • 3 likes
  20. Coolidge

    Fritz (View Comment):

    @Flicker (View Comment):

    [snip]

    By the way, how did he get charged with 2nd degree murder? Let me guess, his defense is that he was not trying to kill anyone he was only trying to kill the fetus and the mother’s death was accidental or incidental to the act; mere incompetence, negligence or carelessness. Good defense.

    Moral? You can murder anyone with relative impunity if you think they’re pregnant.

    Is it a defense now — would you be surprised to see someone argue — that the defendant was assaulting the woman to kill the fetus and she died as a result of a careless attempt at killing a non-human fetus, and so the only applicable charges would be assault and negligent manslaughter?

    • #20
    • February 11, 2019 at 1:49 pm
    • Like
  21. Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    @Flicker (View Comment):

    [snip]

    By the way, how did he get charged with 2nd degree murder? Let me guess, his defense is that he was not trying to kill anyone he was only trying to kill the fetus and the mother’s death was accidental or incidental to the act; mere incompetence, negligence or carelessness. Good defense.

    Moral? You can murder anyone with relative impunity if you think they’re pregnant.

    Is it a defense now — would you be surprised to see someone argue — that the defendant was assaulting the woman to kill the fetus and she died as a result of a careless attempt at killing a non-human fetus, and so the only applicable charges would be assault and negligent manslaughter?

    I don’t know. In some jurisdictions, any assault that causes the death of a human, even though there was no intent to kill, is defined as second degree murder. Example: a bar fight in which one participant slugs another, who dies. No intent to kill, but the intentional act was swinging the fist or the chair or whatever. Negligent homicide or manslaughter usually has the mental element of carelessness or recklessness, but no intent to harm, unlike a roundhouse punch.

    • #21
    • February 12, 2019 at 9:39 am
    • 1 like
  22. Coolidge

    Fritz (View Comment):
    I don’t know. In some jurisdictions, any assault that causes the death of a human, even though there was no intent to kill, is defined as second degree murder. Example: a bar fight in which one participant slugs another, who dies. No intent to kill, but the intentional act was swinging the fist or the chair or whatever. Negligent homicide or manslaughter usually has the mental element of carelessness or recklessness, but no intent to harm, unlike a roundhouse punch.

    What I meant to ask was: He meant to murder his wife. He waited until the opportunity presented itself, in that she was now visibly pregnant. He stabs his wife’s belly repeatedly, pretending to kill the unperson fetus, but “accidentally” kills his wife. He has successfully murdered his wife but argues he was only trying to kill the non-person and his wife’s death was an accident.

    It is in fact first degree murder of two persons, but his defense is that it was manslaughter or 2nd degree murder of a single person whom he was willing to hurt by never intended to kill.

    • #22
    • February 12, 2019 at 11:39 am
    • Like