RSSDilemma in Massachusetts: What’s a Murder?
Gene Lalor | April 20, 2009
Something is amok in Massachusetts!
That’s not really a news item since something is usually amok in Massachusetts. The Bay State has elected Teddy Kennedy as United States senator since 1962 and Barney Frank as one of its congressman since 1980. It’s a state whose courts endorse and promote gay marriage, a state in which the biggest boondoggle in the history of American boondoggles, the Big Dig, wasted most of $15 billion in American taxpayer money–and immediately leaked–and a state which hosts the most woebegone, after the Chicago Cubs, major league baseball team in the country.
I could add a few volumes more about the precipitous decline of the once-great Commonwealth of Massachusetts but why bother? Former Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams would, if they could, wince in their graves at how far their state has fallen.
However, Massachusetts now has an opportunity to redeem itself, somewhat, as the result of a murder case. Whatever the outcome, Massachusetts will still be a state run amok but at least it could be considered relatively sane at times.
On or about April 19th in Quincy, MA, Mrs. Fang Chi-Xue allegedly murdered her 9 year old daughter, tried to murder her 14 year old daughter, and attempted suicide by plunging a knife into her abdomen, near which was living her 7 1/2 month old pre-born child who also expired.
Aside from the rest of the gory details in this sad case of an obviously deranged mom, details which can be found here: http://news.aol.com/article/mom-stabs/432827?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fmom-stabs%2F432827, Massachusetts prosecutors are confronted with a major dilemma. Should Chi-Xue’s murder of a second, albeit pre-born, child be prosecuted as a murder?
Such questions have posed a conundrum for other states. If a state allows the killing of pre-born human life in legalized murder/abortions, how can it pursue legal remedy against a mother, or another party, who unintentionally or intentionally opts to abort in a different manner, as in plunging a knife into the belly of a pregnant woman?
It all conjures up lots of sticky questions as to when human life begins. If it’s at conception, the logical though not always the legal viewpoint, the act would clearly be a murder. But legislators and “moral ethicists” tend to quibble on that issue: Does life begin at conception, after a month, at viablity, at birth? And, some say, who really knows, thereby denying human life the benefits of a doubt accorded to mass murderers.
It’s reported that, “Authorities were awaiting the results of an autopsy before deciding whether [the mother] would be charged with a second count of murder in the death of her unborn baby.” Presumably, if that autopsy shows the baby was viable, that is, able to survive outside Fang’s womb if its life had not been pre-empted, the mother could be charged with a second murder. If the baby is deemed “pre-viable,” despite having all its human body parts including a beating heart, the state of Massachusetts will undoubtedly and effectively say, Who cares?
Based on the recent history of Massachusetts and its court system, I’m betting Fang will not be charged with another murder whether the baby was viable or not. To find otherwise, the state’s abortion laws would have to be considered null, void, and un-constitutional. And we certainly can’t have that!
Contributor's website: http://www.genelalor.com/
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
