When Does Life Begin ...

[ccodiane]

a fetus isnt one... i said "ones".. i fetus is NOT one

"the more vulnerable ones..."

So here's how it would work, Chuck, if states were allowed to choose their abortion "status". Some states would say no abortion, some would say all abortion, and most would fall somewhere in between. Then, instead of having to run to Canada for relief, you could run to a socialist state here in the good ol' USA. It's a win/win, bud.

 

[ViRedd]

Now I'm really confused. Was that humor, Chuck?

Vi

 

[chuckbane]

So here's how it would work, Chuck, if states were allowed to choose their abortion "status". Some states would say no abortion, some would say all abortion, and most would fall somewhere in between. Then, instead of having to run to Canada for relief, you could run to a socialist state here in the good ol' USA. It's a win/win, bud.

no its not, because what if you do not have the means to go to a state with abortion because you cant afford a vehicle...

do you want more poor people having kids unwantedly ending up on welfare with the mothers receiving child tax benefits?

 

[Bongulator]

Some city or state just passed a law where you can abandon children legally. They didn't define what a child is, so they're going with 'under 19 years old'. People could move to that state, and drop the kid off at a fire station. The oldest kid abandoned so far was 17 years old. The state then picks up the tab for raising the child. A whole lot more expensive than abortion, probably by hundreds of thousands of dollars if you drop off a young child, but at least the cost is eaten by the taxpayers that way. Cha ching! Just think, if we recriminalize abortion, we can spend our entire federal budget raising abandoned kids! Woohoo!

Nice that you can do it at any age up to 19 too. No more, 'Clean your room or you're grounded, mister!' Now it's, 'Clean your room or I'm ditching you at the fire station and letting the taxpayers pay to raise your sorry ass!'

 

[ViRedd]

Yeah, here in Commiefornia, you can drop off a newborn at any hospital or fire station with no legal ramifications.

They still throw them in dumpsters though.

Our government indoctrination centers known as "public" schools are doing their jobs all right.

Vi

 

[chuckbane]

Some city or state just passed a law where you can abandon children legally. They didn't define what a child is, so they're going with 'under 19 years old'. People could move to that state, and drop the kid off at a fire station. The oldest kid abandoned so far was 17 years old. The state then picks up the tab for raising the child. A whole lot more expensive than abortion, probably by hundreds of thousands of dollars if you drop off a young child, but at least the cost is eaten by the taxpayers that way. Cha ching! Just think, if we recriminalize abortion, we can spend our entire federal budget raising abandoned kids! Woohoo!

Nice that you can do it at any age up to 19 too. No more, 'Clean your room or you're grounded, mister!' Now it's, 'Clean your room or I'm ditching you at the fire station and letting the taxpayers pay to raise your sorry ass!'

heare this and hear it well. I'm not the only one saying this shit... the wasted tax dollars aside, that child is going to be fucked up for thinking it was not loved by who created itsself. Can you imagine the mental ramifications?

ABORT ABORT
BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

 

[ViRedd]

heare this and hear it well. I'm not the only one saying this shit... the wasted tax dollars aside, that child is going to be fucked up for thinking it was not loved by who created itsself. Can you imagine the mental ramifications?

ABORT ABORT
BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

So, should we abandon the adoption process all together and close the adpotion centers?

Vi

 

[chuckbane]

So, should we abandon the adoption process all together and close the adpotion centers?

Vi

Nope, because there will still be plenty of women/couples who change thier mind after it pops out.

We cut cut the needed budget in half though!

Less of your tax dollars spent on bastard children who will most likely end up on welfare. Doesnt that make you happy Vi?

 

[Doctor Pot]

Biologically, there is no question. A fetus is alive. However, it is also true that legalizing abortion is good for society. Women who have abortions tend to be poorer and less responsible than those who don't, and their kids end up being burdens to society more often than not. Plus, rape and incest are sad facts of life, and women and girls who have to deal with this trauma should at least be permitted to decide whether to deal with the trauma of having the kid as well, I think.

But if a woman wants to have the baby and give it up for adoption, that's perfectly fine as well. That's what the whole "choice" thing is all about.

Abortions are disgusting. But I think they're a necessary evil.

 

[chuckbane]

Biologically, there is no question. A fetus is alive.

Is sperm biologically alive?

 

[Doctor Pot]

Is sperm biologically alive?

Yes, but it doesn't have any potential without fertilizing an egg. Once that egg is fertilized, it's a new life. Of course, that zygote might split into two parts that go their separate ways and become identical twins, in which case it's two new lives. Or it might run into another zygote and fuse with it, becoming a chimera, in which case it's only like a half of a new life.

I know where you're going with this, you're going to imply that Doctor Pot is killing babies every time he throws away his used condoms. But conception is really what starts the ball rolling, so to speak. At that point, the zygote has the full compliment of human chromosomes, and thus can grow into a human. Of course, if we admit that abortion is ending human lives, it sounds icky, so we like to say that that just isn't the case.

Of course, a little ball of cells might be alive, and it might be human, but it hardly possesses a human conscience. So when does a human life become conscious? My guess is, about two years old. But I don't think anyone likes that answer.

Incidentally, I was talking to a friend of mine who is both a feminist and a lesbian. We were talking about sex and biology and I mentioned to her that all animals evolved from single-celled organisms that looked very much like sperm cells. (this is true!) She was visibly disappointed. I guess she preferred to think of males as being sort of an afterthought in the story of life. For some reason I thought it was hilarious.

 

[dknob]

Thats what im fucking talking about! You said it better though. Life is life, Human life is human life, ending human life is murder, abortion is a popular and accepted form of murder. And ya know what, if we looked at it for what it is, the reality as illustraited in the late term abortions ViRedd posted, maybe it wouldn't be going on so much.

Yes, but it doesn't have any potential without fertilizing an egg. Once that egg is fertilized, it's a new life. Of course, that zygote might split into two parts that go their separate ways and become identical twins, in which case it's two new lives. Or it might run into another zygote and fuse with it, becoming a chimera, in which case it's only like a half of a new life.

I know where you're going with this, you're going to imply that Doctor Pot is killing babies every time he throws away his used condoms. But conception is really what starts the ball rolling, so to speak. At that point, the zygote has the full compliment of human chromosomes, and thus can grow into a human. Of course, if we admit that abortion is ending human lives, it sounds icky, so we like to say that that just isn't the case.

Of course, a little ball of cells might be alive, and it might be human, but it hardly possesses a human conscience. So when does a human life become conscious? My guess is, about two years old. But I don't think anyone likes that answer.

Incidentally, I was talking to a friend of mine who is both a feminist and a lesbian. We were talking about sex and biology and I mentioned to her that all animals evolved from single-celled organisms that looked very much like sperm cells. (this is true!) She was visibly disappointed. I guess she preferred to think of males as being sort of an afterthought in the story of life. For some reason I thought it was hilarious.

 

[ccodiane]

When the question is settled, Government has slain god.

 

[ViRedd]

Thats what im fucking talking about! You said it better though. Life is life, Human life is human life, ending human life is murder, abortion is a popular and accepted form of murder. And ya know what, if we looked at it for what it is, the reality as illustraited in the late term abortions ViRedd posted, maybe it wouldn't be going on so much.[/quote]

​

Yep, and that's exactly why we never see those pictures anywhere except on the free press of the net. WAY too "controversial," don't you know.

Vi

 

[Doctor Pot]

Thats what im fucking talking about! You said it better though. Life is life, Human life is human life, ending human life is murder, abortion is a popular and accepted form of murder. And ya know what, if we looked at it for what it is, the reality as illustraited in the late term abortions ViRedd posted, maybe it wouldn't be going on so much.

The trouble is, this "proof" relies on definitions, and our definitions are only as good as we make them. Things are what they are, regardless of how we define them. For instance, ending a human life is not always murder, you should know that. There are plenty of popularly accepted exceptions. (ie, self-defense, capital punishment, war) You can explain away all these exceptions, and abortion can be explained away too.

The reason we punish murderers is not for their victims. They're dead, they don't care. It's for everyone else, namely the people that had bonds with the victims and the people who want to make sure this can't happen to them or people they have bonds with.

But abortion is kind of a special case. The only one that has a bond with the unborn baby is the mother, and if she wants to let go, no one else usually ends up hurting for it. So our legal system allows the mother to decide whether the fetus is in fact a person. Plus, there's the whole fact that abortion is mostly good for society.

Also, even though life does begin at conception, the point I was trying to make with identical twins and chimeras is that life is so malleable at that point, that you can't really say those are people.

It may seem arbitrary, but I think that a budding human life doesn't become a person until it starts doing things that animals can't do. Of course, most people would frown on the murder of infants and severely retarded people, so we have to draw a line somewhere else, even if it's arbitrary.

Of course, if abortion was illegal, enforcing the law and punishing offenders would be a nightmare. Would anyone seriously advocate charging a woman who had an abortion with murder?

 

[ccodiane]

The trouble is, this "proof" relies on definitions, and our definitions are only as good as we make them. Things are what they are, regardless of how we define them. For instance, ending a human life is not always murder, you should know that. There are plenty of popularly accepted exceptions. (ie, self-defense, capital punishment, war) You can explain away all these exceptions, and abortion can be explained away too.

The reason we punish murderers is not for their victims. They're dead, they don't care. It's for everyone else, namely the people that had bonds with the victims and the people who want to make sure this can't happen to them or people they have bonds with.

But abortion is kind of a special case. The only one that has a bond with the unborn baby is the mother, and if she wants to let go, no one else usually ends up hurting for it. So our legal system allows the mother to decide whether the fetus is in fact a person. Plus, there's the whole fact that abortion is mostly good for society.

Also, even though life does begin at conception, the point I was trying to make with identical twins and chimeras is that life is so malleable at that point, that you can't really say those are people.

It may seem arbitrary, but I think that a budding human life doesn't become a person until it starts doing things that animals can't do. Of course, most people would frown on the murder of infants and severely retarded people, so we have to draw a line somewhere else, even if it's arbitrary.

Of course, if abortion was illegal, enforcing the law and punishing offenders would be a nightmare. Would anyone seriously advocate charging a woman who had an abortion with murder?

For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
---- Begin EndNotes ----
1 Jurisdictions having enacted abortion laws prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868:

1. Alabama -- Ala. Acts, c. 6, § 2 (1840).

2. Arizona -- Howell Code, c. 10, § 45 (1865).

3. Arkansas -- Ark. Rev. Stat., c. 44, div. III, Art. II, § 6 (183.

4. California -- Cal. Sess. Laws, c. 99, § 45, p. 233 (1849-1850).

5. Colorado (Terr.) -- Colo. Gen. Laws of Terr. of Colo., 1st Sess., § 42, pp. 296-297 (1861).

6. Connecticut -- Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16 (1821). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by another abortion law. Conn. Pub. Acts, c. 71, §§ 1, 2, p. 65 (1860).

7. Florida -- Fla. Acts 1st Sess., c. 1637, subc. 3, §§ 10, 11, subc. 8, §§ 9, 10, 11 (186, as amended, now Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 782.09, 782.10, 797.01, 797.02, 782.16 (1965).

8. Georgia -- Ga. Pen. Code, 4th Div., § 20 (1833).

9. Kingdom of Hawaii -- Hawaii Pen. Code, c. 12, §§ 1, 2, 3 (1850).

10. Idaho (Terr.) -- Idaho (Terr.) Laws, Crimes and Punishments §§ 33, 34, 42, pp. 441, 443 (1863).

11. Illinois -- Ill. Rev. Criminal Code §§ 40, 41, 46, pp. 130, 131 (1827). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by a subsequent enactment. Ill. Pub. Laws §§ 1, 2, 3, p. 89 (1867).

12. Indiana -- Ind. Rev. Stat. §§ 1, 3, p. 224 (183. By 1868 this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Ind. Laws, c. LXXXI, § 2 (1859).

13. Iowa (Terr.) -- Iowa (Terr.) Stat., 1st Legis., 1st Sess., § 18, p. 145 (183. By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Iowa (Terr.) Rev. Stat., c. 49, §§ 10, 13 (1843).

14. Kansas (Terr.) -- Kan. (Terr.) Stat., c. 48, §§ 9, 10, 39 (1855). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Kan. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, §§ 9, 10, 37 (1859).

15. Louisiana -- La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offenses § 24, p. 138 (1856).

16. Maine -- Me. Rev. Stat., c. 160, §§ 11, 12, 13, 14 (1840).

17. Maryland -- Md. Laws, c. 179, § 2, p. 315 (186.

18. Massachusetts -- Mass. Acts & Resolves, c. 27 (1845).

19. Michigan -- Mich. Rev. Stat., c. 153, §§ 32, 33, 34, p. 662 (1846).

20. Minnesota (Terr.) -- Minn. (Terr.) Rev. Stat., c. 100, §§ 10, 11, p. 493 (1851).

21. Mississippi -- Miss. Code, c. 64, §§ 8, 9, p. 958 (184.

22. Missouri -- Mo. Rev. Stat., Art. II, §§ 9, 10, 36, pp. 168, 172 (1835).

23. Montana (Terr.) -- Mont. (Terr.) Laws, Criminal Practice Acts § 41, p. 184 (1864).

24. Nevada (Terr.) -- Nev. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, § 42, p. 63 (1861).

25. New Hampshire -- N. H. Laws, c. 743, § 1, p. 708 (184.

26. New Jersey -- N. J. Laws, p. 266 (1849).

27. New York -- N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit. 2, §§ 8, 9, pp. 12-13 (182. By 1868, this statute had been superseded. N. Y. Laws, c. 260, §§ 1-6, pp. 285-286 (1845); N. Y. Laws, c. 22, § 1, p. 19 (1846).

28. Ohio -- Ohio Gen. Stat. §§ 111 (1), 112 (2), p. 252 (1841).

29. Oregon -- Ore. Gen. Laws, Crim. Code, c. 43, § 509, p. 528 (1845-1864).

30. Pennsylvania -- Pa. Laws No. 374, §§ 87, 88, 89 (1860).

31. Texas -- Tex. Gen. Stat. Dig., c. VII, Arts. 531-536, p. 524 (Oldham & White 1859).

32. Vermont -- Vt. Acts No. 33, § 1 (1846). By 1868, this statute had been amended. Vt. Acts No. 57, §§ 1, 3 (1867).

33. Virginia -- Va. Acts, Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (184.

34. Washington (Terr.) -- Wash. (Terr.) Stats., c. II, §§ 37, 38, p. 81 (1854).

35. West Virginia -- See Va. Acts., Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (184; W. Va. Const., Art. XI, par. 8 (1863).

36. Wisconsin -- Wis. Rev. Stat., c. 133, §§ 10, 11 (1849). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. Wis. Rev. Stat., c. 164, §§ 10, 11; c. 169, §§ 58, 59 (185.


2 Abortion laws in effect in 1868 and still applicable as of August 1970: 1. Arizona (1865).

2. Connecticut (1860).

3. Florida (186.

4. Idaho (1863).

5. Indiana (183.

6. Iowa (1843).

7. Maine (1840).

8. Massachusetts (1845).

9. Michigan (1846).

10. Minnesota (1851).

11. Missouri (1835).

12. Montana (1864).

13. Nevada (1861).

14. New Hampshire (184.

15. New Jersey (1849).

16. Ohio (1841).

17. Pennsylvania (1860).

18. Texas (1859).

19. Vermont (1867).

20. West Virginia (1863).

21. Wisconsin (185.

 

[ViRedd]

The trouble is, this "proof" relies on definitions, and our definitions are only as good as we make them. Things are what they are, regardless of how we define them. For instance, ending a human life is not always murder, you should know that. There are plenty of popularly accepted exceptions. (ie, self-defense, capital punishment, war) You can explain away all these exceptions, and abortion can be explained away too.

The reason we punish murderers is not for their victims. They're dead, they don't care. It's for everyone else, namely the people that had bonds with the victims and the people who want to make sure this can't happen to them or people they have bonds with.

But abortion is kind of a special case. 1. The only one that has a bond with the unborn baby is the mother, and if she wants to let go, no one else usually ends up hurting for it. So our legal system allows the mother to decide whether the fetus is in fact a person. Plus, there's the whole fact that abortion is mostly good for society.

Also, even though life does begin at conception, the point I was trying to make with identical twins and chimeras is that life is so malleable at that point, that you can't really say those are people.

It may seem arbitrary, but I think that a budding human life doesn't become a person until it starts doing things that animals can't do. 2. Of course, most people would frown on the murder of infants and severely retarded people, so we have to draw a line somewhere else, even if it's arbitrary.

Of course, if abortion was illegal, enforcing the law and punishing offenders would be a nightmare. Would anyone seriously advocate charging a woman who had an abortion with murder?

1. Does the father not have a say? How about the grand parents? How about other siblings? As a father and a grandfather, I have felt each of my own children and all of my grandchildren's movement in the womb. To me, it was a miracle.

2. That's now, but with the New Age lack of respect for life still in the womb, how long will it be before we can "take care" of other "inconvenient" life as well?

Vi

 

[ccodiane]

..............................

 

[Doctor Pot]

ccodiane - You missed my point (which admittedly may not have been clear) that if abortion was equated to murder, you would have to charge women who aborted their fetuses as murderers, which was not done in any of the places you listed. So clearly there is a difference between abortion and murder.

1. Does the father not have a say? How about the grand parents? How about other siblings? As a father and a grandfather, I have felt each of my own children and all of my grandchildren's movement in the womb. To me, it was a miracle.

2. That's now, but with the New Age lack of respect for life still in the womb, how long will it be before we can "take care" of other "inconvenient" life as well?

Vi

1) I thought of that and was going to mention it, but didn't. The more correct thing to say would have been that before being born, the bond between a fetus and its mother dwarfs all other bonds especially early on. Once it starts manifesting itself physically (ie others can see and feel its presence), and becomes more of a reality than an idea, this slowly ceases to be the case. And the law reflects this, as late-term abortions are rare and often illegal.

2) I take care of the inconvenient life in my backyard that eats my vegetables, despite the fact that some people would consider it murder to shoot rabbits. But because the majority of people don't agree that constitutes murder, I am allowed to do so. So it would appear that it's up to the majority. However, human nature is pretty consistent. You can only go so far before people start strongly opposing the destruction of human life. Sure, you have cases like the holocaust, but most Germans weren't entirely aware of what was going on, and would probably have been sickened if they did. So, I think free speech and a free press are the most important ways to prevent that.

 

[ccodiane]

Life begins at conception, "consciousness" some time after, and abortion law was written "in stone" by a majority of 7. Why shouldn't the laws we allow to govern us be more fluid in order to accommodate the populous and their ever changing beliefs and convictions, despite what you or I think. Let's take a vote on it, state by state.


Prostitution in Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nevada is one of only two U.S. states that allow some legal prostitution; in most of its counties, brothels are legalized and heavily regulated. (In Rhode Island, the act of sex for money is not illegal, but street solicitation, and operation of a brothel, are.)




Utah's strict liquor laws might get stricter

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) When Gov. Jon Huntsman took office, he said Utah should loosen its notoriously strict liquor laws by considering selling wine in grocery stores and ending a requirement that people have a membership to enter a bar.

Four years later, those laws haven't changed; the state liquor board is controlled by teetotalers, and Utah is on the verge of becoming the only state in the country to ban the sale of flavored, sweet malt beverages from its grocery stores.



Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

Alabama. Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (Ala. Stat. Ann. 13A-5-40(a)(1)-(1).
Arizona. First-degree murder accompanied by at least 1 of 14 aggravating factors (A.R.S 13-703(F)).
Arkansas. Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; treason.
California. First-degree murder with special circumstances; train wrecking; treason; perjury causing execution.
Colorado. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors; treason.
Connecticut. Capital felony with 8 forms of aggravated homicide (C.G.S. 53a-54b).
Delaware. First-degree murder with at least 1 aggravating circumstances.
Florida. First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.
Georgia. Murder; kidnaping with bodily injury or ransom when the victim dies; aircraft hijacking; treason.
Idaho. First-degree murder with aggravating factors; aggravated kidnapping, perjury resulting in death.
Illinois. First-degree murder with 1 of 21 aggravating circumstances.
Indiana. Murder with 16 aggravating circumstances (IC 35-50-2-9).
Kansas. Capital murder with 8 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439, KSA 21-4625).
Kentucky. Murder with aggravating factors; kidnapping with aggravating factors (KRS 32.025).
Louisiana. First-degree murder; aggravated rape of victim under age 13; treason (La. R.S. 14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).

Revision: Revised the definition of aggravated rape as a capital-eligible offense to include any offense involving victims under age 13. (2006 La. Sess. Law, Act 17, effective 8/15/2006.
Maryland. First-degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony, provided that certain death eligibility requirements are satisfied.
Mississippi. Capital murder (97-3-19(2) MCA); aircraft piracy (97-25-55(1) MCA).
Missouri. First-degree murder (565.020 RSMO 2000).
Montana. Capital murder with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-303); aggravated sexual intercourse without consent (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-503).
Nebraska. First-degree murder with a finding of at least 1 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstance.
Nevada. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (NRS 200.030, 200.033, 200.035).
New Hampshire. Six categories of capital murder (RSA 630:1, RSA 630:5).

Revision: Amended the capital statute to increase the minimum age of eligibility for a death sentence from 17 to 18 years at the time the offense was committed (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 630:1,V), effective 1/1/2006.
New Jersey. Murder by one's own conduct, by solicitation, committed in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy, or during the commission of the crime of terrorism (NJSA 2C:11-3C). NOTE: On December 17, 2007, the New Jersey death penalty was abolished.
New Mexico. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 7 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances (Section 30-2-1 A, NMSA).
New York. First-degree murder with 1 of 13 aggravating factors (NY Penal Law Sec. 125.27). NOTE: On June 24, 2004, the New York death penalty statute was ruled unconstitutional.

North Carolina. First-degree murder (NCGS 14-17).
Ohio. Aggravated murder with at least 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances (O.R.C. secs. 2903.01, 2929.02, and 2929.04).
Oklahoma. First-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances; sex crimes against a child under 14 years of age.

Revision: Added as a capital offense sex crimes against a child under 14 years of age when the offender has a previous conviction for a similar offense (Okla. Stat. Ann. 10 § 7115), effective 7/1/2006.
Oregon. Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095).
Pennsylvania. First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances.
South Carolina. Murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (§ 16-3-20(C)(a)); criminal sexual conduct with a minor with 1 of 9 aggravators (§ 16-3-655).

Revision: Added as a capital offense second and subsequent offenses of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor who is less than 11 years of age (§16-3-655). Lawmakers also added as an aggravating factor murder committed by a person deemed a sexually violent predator under South Carolina law (§16-3-20(C)(a)(12). Both changes were effective 7/1/2006.
South Dakota. First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances.
Revision:Amended the definition of aggravated kidnapping to eliminate death as a possible sentence (SDCL 22-19-1), effective 7/1/2006.
Tennessee. First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances (Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 39-13-204).
Texas. Criminal homicide with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (TX Penal Code 19.03).
Utah. Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code Annotated).
Virginia. First-degree murder with 1 of 13 aggravating circumstances (VA Code 18.2-31).
Washington. Aggravated first-degree murder.
Wyoming. First-degree murder.