Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Manslaughter for accidental abortion?

This could get interesting. South Dakota is strongly a right to life state.

Sioux Falls man faces manslaughter charges after accidental shooting

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KSFY) - Sheldon Pettibone is facing manslaughter charges after shooting a woman and killing her unborn baby.

The charges stem from an incident that happened on Sunday afternoon.

Police say Pettibone was cleaning a gun when it went off and struck Melanie Pettibone in the leg. The bullet traveled through her uterus, striking the child. KSFY TV

nighthawk

I know where that giant pheasant is located. Lived there from 1992-2002. Still have good friends there.

Lived there for about four months but that was in 1980. Audited the electric company for the dept of energy. Most notable thing, one day a big storm came up. Found out later tornado passed by just outside town. Everybody sheltered in the basement but nobody told the auditors who were surrounded by windows on the second floor. Auditors get no respect.

Cleaning a gun and it went off. Can't be much of a bigger idiot. He should not own guns. Seems the right charge.

Nope, manslaughter presumes the death of a person and since an unborn fetus is not a person manslaughter is inappropriate. We are talking something she could have terminated herself legally at some point, so how does manslaughter fit? An unborn fetus is a person or it is not, there is no in between. It is not a person because the woman wishes to bring it to term, and not a person if she wishes to terminate.

Be consistent.

I have never figured out how you go about cleaning a loaded firearm.

This idiot had a loaded firearm (Rule #1) , pointed it at a person (Rule #2) and pulled the trigger. (Rule #3)

Question is, as always, was it REALLY an accident.

Not worried about any charge specifics, but the idiot should do some time.

The unborn are indeed persons.

I agree......especially on that last one. Seems like a convenient way to get rid of a perceived problem.

There was a story in the news last year where a female obstetrician was pulling a baby out of a woman giving birth. She had all but the head. She pulled a little too hard, and the head came off, remaining in her uterus. All were horrified at the headless baby in the doctor’s hands. The mother had to be immediately taken to surgery to remove her newborn baby’s head.

What makes you say that? Personhood and the rights of that person to be protected by law is the question.

Well, if the unborn fetus is a person then EVERY abortion (other than spontaneous) should be treated as either manslaughter or, if deliberate, as murder.

Grumulkin got it right. The baby is human or not. Can’t have it both ways. Ed k

That’s the worst thing I’ve heard in.....well, maybe ever.

The baby is human. Birth results in no ontological change whatsoever.

And yes, abortion is the voluntary killing of a human.

I remember something happening like this when I was a boy. I believe that it was an uncle cleaning a handgun; there was an accidental discharge, and a nephew was killed. I don't recall any charges in that case, and while the negligence on the part of the uncle cannot be denied, I can't see where they would have helped the family through an already terrible situation.

What defines a person. That would be a human being who is born and is alive. (Blacks Dictionary). And I am talking first breath. My point is you can't call it a person for one purpose and not a person for another.

Yes, they should be because that's exactly what they are.

100%


And yet, in many states an unborn person can be killed legally,
while a person who is responsible for accidentally causing the
death of one, is imprisoned.

Because somebody wrote it in a dictionary? At one time quickening, when the fetus was capable of moving, was widely accepted as the beginning of life. Now we have ultrasound, fetal heart monitors and even tiny little cameras. Exactly what is it about birth that's definitive? Natural birth? Caesarean? Maybe six months after birth? After all the former fetus is still dependent on the mother for everything during that period.

But actually the question is at what stage of development does the government have an interest in protecting the rights fetus? And how does that contrast with tprotecting the rights of the mother? (See how Roe nicely ducked the question of when does life begin?)