"Ohio is one of 38 states to have a fetal homicide law on the books, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The law in Ohio makes it a crime to murder a person "who is or was carried in the womb of another."
The state's fetal homicide law was used in 2011 against Dominic Holt-Reid who tried to force his girlfriend to get an abortion at gunpoint in Ohio. Holt-Reid pleaded guilty to an attempted murder charge and is serving 13 years in prison.
The most high-profile fetal homicide trial in the United States occurred in 2004, when Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and unborn son and sentenced to death in California.
On Thursday, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty, who has jurisdiction over all felony cases for Cleveland, said he intends to seek aggravated murder charges against Castro once the case is formally transferred to his office. Aggravated murder charges could carry the death penalty." Yahhat i can only point out the oo News
The depth of my contempt and loathing for Ariel Castro is profound. I hope the state of Ohio prosecutes him for everything they find feasible, including the fetal murder charge.
Having said that, I feel I must point to what appears to me to be a logical (but apparently not legal) conflict between Ohio's apparent concession of "human being" status to an unborn but living fetus and my perception of the position of orgnizations like NARAL who maintain that a living fetus is not a human being and that it can be disposed of by the mother up to the moment of birth if she wishes to do so.
Thereafter, according to the law in many places, the newborn becomes a living human being and the act of killing it becomes homicide.
Are there not logical inconsistencies in these "rules?"
I am sure that groups like NOW and NARAL wish to see Castro punished, but do they accept Ohio's definition of an unborn child as human? pl